- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:50:25 -0500
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Friday, September 28, 2001, at 12:31 PM, Sergey Melnik wrote: > >> Tracked as: #rdfms-literals-as-resources >> Dependent issue: #rdfms-literalsubjects, would be resolved immediately >>if literals are resources > >Oh? I don't agree with that. We can say that literals are resources >(indeed, I think it's pretty clear we have to) but we don't have to >give them URIs, or a place in the RDF abstract syntax. I agree. In the same vein: > >These are the (possible) consequences: > >c1) Resources and literals are disjoint I don't think this is a consequence. Literals are not URIs, but they can be resources, and literal values can definitely be resources. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 18:50:32 UTC