RE: [xml-dev] URIs are simply names was:Re:[xml-dev]"Abstract"URIs

From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

[...]
> The present consensus in RDF core is that literals will
> be tidy and thus context is not born by the literal node
> itself in the graph.

But it's not a literal node; it's a resource xsd.int:22, not "22" or 22.
I understand the limitations of literals as you present them; that's the reason to use a non-retreivable resource scheme to get rid of them.


> > Ok, from scratch. How about this:
> > 
> > :mySweater xx:label xsd.string:22

> This is a TDL URV, a typed data literal uniform resource value.

> C.f. http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pstickler-tdl-00.txt

Indeed. Wow I had no clue. Actually, I expected some serious flames for my post :-)

> A literal must have context to have consistent interpretation.

Allow me to sumarise; My intention was to use real URIs, resources as RDF(S) anticipates them to ban literals from the model. 

Now, if the WG does not agree with "resourcing" literals (which, IMHO is by far the best solution), I guess the next best thing is the "literals-in-context" thingy; still I don't think I like it... it sounds like complicating things for less; but that's just me.

> We'll see (and real soon now, we're supposed to be done already ;-)

I'm glad I got close :-)

Kindest regards,

Manos

PS: To tell you the truth, I cannot understand why the literal integer 22 (for example) is not unique :-(
The way I see it, it's just a sequence of characters. Anyone using 22 means 22 and sees 22; now what interpretation such a literal may have in a closed system should not be a consern to RDF. 
I just don't get it...