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

Re: draft partitioning of the issues

From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:59:27 -0400
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, me@aaronsw.com
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010626095927.A24489@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 02:33:54PM +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> Aaron Swartz wrote:
> > > 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).
> Yes, I think you are right that it does not state explicitly that they
> are disjoint.  In reading the spec I ascribe some information to the
> fact that m&s calls out that an object can be either a resource or a
> literal and says only that subject is a member of resources.  Whilst this
> may not be a mathematically precise statement that resources and
> literals are disjoint, it seems pretty clear that it was the intent
> that they are and that subjects may not therefore be literals.

Is anyone aware of any implementations that reflect an 
interpretation of the spec where the set Resources and 
the set Literals per:


are NOT disjoint?
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 10:00:16 UTC

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