RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource") from Joshua Allen on 2004-10-28 (www-tag@w3.org from October 2004)

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:43:49 -0700
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52035B0860@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> >I agree that the restriction on URIs in the subject in RDF is a
mistake.
> >I forgot what happened to that comment process wise.
> 
> It was a language extension that we did not feel was justified by the
> charter and/or specific difficulties with RDF as defined.  Generally,
it

This makes me nervous.  We are already finding it very difficult to
prevent people from using URIs in ambiguous ways; it seems we are
inviting people to get even more confused if we allow literals.

Can't people just mint a URI to stand in for a literal, if they want to
assert about that literal?

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 16:43:53 UTC