Re: A collection of issue resolutions

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