- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:47:18 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote: > No, I'm suggesting that we make Literals a subset of 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. > > Could you give an example of using the current RDF/XML syntax to > > represent a literal as a subject. > > Well, it depends on how we define the abstract syntax. I'd > suggest something like: > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns="http://rdf.example.org/#"> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="data:text/plain;Chicago"> > <startsWith>C</startsWith> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> > > become: > > <data:text/plain;Chicago> <http://rdf.example.org/#startsWith> > <data:text/plain;C> . > > The XML syntax need not change for this. Right. Now I see what you are getting at. This is: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literals-as-resources Creative interpretations aside, this is a change to the model described in m&s, but it is a pure simplification in that it removes something from the abstract syntax and changes nothing of the interpretation of what is left. If it can be made to work, then any model according to the more common interpretation of M&S would be isomorphic with one using data uri's. So on the procedural question, I'm persuaded - we should consider this one. Is anyone willing to write up a proposal? It will need to cover questions like, given a literal - what exactly is the uri a parser should produce, questions of equality and equivalence (is <data:text/xml;A> the same as <data:text/plain;A>, effects on implementations (do they have to allow for larger URI's?) Brian
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 06:49:33 UTC