- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 10:36:18 +0200
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>A few musings, to borrow Graham's term. > >As I understand Pat's proposal, the main idea requires literals to >be subjects. It doesn't REQUIRE it, but it sure would be much neater if they could be. > Now, RDF/XML doesn't allow us to represent literals as subjects and >we have decided that extending it is out of charter. Well, this is true insofar as RDF literals are concerned, but not "literal data values" in general, per se. One can encode typed data literal values in URVs (URIs) and in such a form one has explicit data typing information about the value (think of the URV as a complex data object with embedded type identity in a weakly typed system) -- and thereby those values can also serve as subjects of statements because they are proper resources. And no changes to RDF are required. Only perhaps some rules of interpretation and/or equivalence between such URV forms and qualified anonymous nodes specified for rdf:type (such as defined in my X-Values concept). Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 03:36:49 UTC