- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:28:48 +0100
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
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