- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:04:46 -0500
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Sunday, June 24, 2001, at 09:25 AM, Brian McBride wrote: > >>>I also believe the following issues are in scope for the Working Group: >>> >>>rdfms-literals-as-resources and rdfms-literalsubjects: >>>A large body of implementation and user experience shows the need >>>for these issues to be clarified. I think that there is certainly >>>room for clarification of this within the charter of the Working >>>Group. >> >>I'm a bit confused by this one Aaron. Whilst I'm not arguing (yet) whether >>these are in or out of scope, they don't seem to be about clarification. >>Is there any doubt that as far as m&s is concerned: >> >> o literals are not allowed as subjects >> o literals are not resources > >I do not see either of these stated in the spec. M&S says: > > pred is a property (member of Properties), sub is a resource > (member of Resources), and obj is either a resource or a > literal (member of Literals). > >but it never says that literals and resources are disjoint in any >normative portion of the document (to my knowledge, after a quick >search). Right. And I thought that 'resource' meant the same as 'entity', and therefore a literal would be a resource. In fact everything is a resource. (If this is false, can anyone point me at a definition of 'resource' which explains how to distinguish non-resources?) > >>Which is maybe not how some folks would like it to be. If we considered >>introducing this change, do you think we would need a syntax change to >>represent it? Of course, anyone can now use data uri's now if they want to. >>We don't have to do anything to support that. > >No, I do not think a syntax change is necessary. This is simply a >change to the abstract syntax. ?? Surely a change to the abstract syntax is likely to require a change in any concrete syntax ?? > >>>rdf-equivalent-uri's: >>>Experience with the DAML specification has shown equivalence >>>to be a useful and perhaps even essential property. It's absence from the >>>schema spec is, in my opinion, an error. >> >>I try to avoid using words like 'error', but I have long felt that such >>a facility would be useful. I remember Mike Dean commenting at the >>Boston f2f that equivalence was "something that should get implemented >>early". > >Yes, apologies if I offended anyone with the term error. However, I >feel strongly that this is a useful facility. I agree. However, equivalence usually means 'having the same referent' or '....same denotation'. So unless we have the notion of whatURI's denote reasonably clear, we probably won't be able to get equivalence clear; and if we do, it will be semantically trivial. Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 18:04:47 UTC