- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:21:47 +0200
- To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-13 17:38, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Wuthering Heights" <rdf:type> <ex:book> . > > is a silly thing to say because "Wuthering Heights" is a 17 character > string which is a bit too short to qualify as a book. Under our present > proposals, "Wuthering Heights" cannot denote the book Wuthering Heights. > > This is what I think you may have meant when you said that Literals cannot > denote 'interesting' resources. Exactly. For literals as subjects to be 'interesting' they must be untidy, and my concern was that folks would interpret the "go ahead" to future WGs as meaning that folks later might get interesting literals as subjects, which of course they won't since we're about to make literals tidy. All of the discussions that have occurred in this list and elsewhere have been based on the presumption of untidy, interesting literals as subjects, so we need to be clear that we're not simply deferring untidy, interesting literals as subjects because of syntax issues, etc. but that we are eliminating such a possibility for the future, even if later folks can have tidy, uninteresting literals as subjects. Eh? Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 13:20:24 UTC