W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: draft partitioning of the issues

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:04:46 -0500
Message-Id: <v04210114b75d64bf3779@[]>
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 
>>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 

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 ??

>>>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
>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
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 18:04:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC