W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:26:44 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMEDOCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


I haven't understood why issue 2 is in here:

> 2. Are resource URIs opaque or composed of namespace + local name?

Isn't s2 sufficient for (a fairly weak) datatyping with or without s1.

> s1) A resource is a pair of (URI, local name) (URIs may contain "#"
> etc.; this satisfies the M&S requirement that given a property, one can
> retrieve the schema describing this property)

> s2) A literal is a pair <resource, unicode string>. The first component
> of a literal denotes its (data)type.

Personally I feel that in M&S resource URIs are opaque and not a namespace +
local name (which is simply a facet of the XML serialization). Hence I need
very strong arguments for making a significant change that will break most

Datatyping might be a sufficiently strong argument, but I haven't yet
understood it.

Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 08:27:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC