- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:57:30 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Pat Hayes said: > Sure they can. Literals denote character strings. Why cannot a string > be a subject? I might want to say something about it, eg that its > written in German. This has got nothing to do with tidiness. I don't see why we can't have literals as subjects in the model, especially if it makes things cleaner. We should just be clear that they can't be written in the (current) RDF/XML syntax. If we get onto the rich XML content literals, they might be useful such that we would want to talk about them but I can't see how we could use them in the current syntax except as statement objects. In a future syntax/other syntax, it may be possible to put them as subjects and we shouldn't limit ourselves based on the current RDF/XML, if we can see a good use for them. <snip/> > The point there was not allowing literals to be subjects, but the > fact that it made literals context-sensitive in meaning. THAT was the > killer problem that required untidy literals. Allowing literal > subjects is orthogonal. I agree on the orthogonality Dave
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 05:59:31 UTC