- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:26:44 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sergey 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 implementations. Datatyping might be a sufficiently strong argument, but I haven't yet understood it. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 08:27:12 UTC