Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13)

Before I tackle the technical content, I'd like to raise a "point of order":

It is not clear to me that item 2 must or should be dealt with as part of 
the same "big issue" as the other points.  Indeed, I find the idea that the 
nature of literals and the nature of URIs somehow interdependent to be 
rather scary.

#g
--


At 10:31 AM 9/28/01 -0700, Sergey Melnik wrote:
>It seems to be generally acknowledged that the following 4 issues are
>closely related and, thus, may need to be resolved simultaneously:
>
>1. Are literals resources?
>
>   Tracked as: #rdfms-literals-as-resources
>   Dependent issue: #rdfms-literalsubjects, would be resolved immediately
>if literals are resources
>
>2. Are resource URIs opaque or composed of namespace + local name?
>
>   Tracked as: #rdfms-uri-substructure
>   Intro:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0270.html
>
>3. Are literals opaque or composed of unicode string + language ID/URI?
>
>   Tracked as: #rdfms-xmllang
>   Related: #rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
>   Summary:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0122.html
>            (suggests literals are composite values)
>
>4. How to use datatypes in RDF?
>
>   Tracked as: #rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes
>   Possible foundation: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 04:49:20 UTC