- From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:34:34 -0700
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron said: > On Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 11:22 AM, Ron Daniel wrote: > > > While I would prefer that we have a way to make literals > > the subject of statements, it seems completely clear that > > such a feature is NOT part of the 1.0 M&S. > > As I have stated and will repeat, I have never seen the M&S > state that Literals and Resources are disjoint. I have already cited section 2.1 of the spec, which says: The object of a statement (i.e., the property value) can be another resource or it can be a literal; [...] This seems pretty clear. But if you disagree, is there a particular standard of proof for supporting evidence you would have to see before acknowledging that the 1.0 M&S considers the two to be distinct? How about: 1) A member of the original working groups (me) has stated that their recollection was that the two were considered distinct. (That is a pretty strong recollection BTW). 2) The spec has many examples of simple quoted strings as values, or URI references as values. But it has no examples of data URLs or any examples showing how a literal is mapped into a Resource or vice versa. 3) All RDF parsers and APIs I am familiar with treat literals as distinct from resources, which is a pretty solid verdict from implementation experience. 4) Art Barstow asked the WG if anyone was familiar with implementations that did not treat them as distinct. Nobody has replied in the affirmative, although Jan Grant said that he could change his code to make it so. But the point is that this would be a change. So let's turn this around. What evidence can you provide showing that the 1.0 M&S spec considers them to be the same? Since you are the one requesting this, the onus is on you to show that it is only a clarification, or if it is a change, that there is enough implementation experience showing it is a needed change. To keep the length of this message tolerable, I will forego the topic of whether this is really a simplicication. Ron
Received on Friday, 29 June 2001 04:36:17 UTC