ISSUE-49: Revisit "Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals"
revisit-rdfms-literalsubjects
Revisit "Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals"
- State:
- POSTPONED
- Product:
- Cleanup tasks
- Raised by:
- David Wood
- Opened on:
- 2011-05-03
- Description:
- See http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects
rdfms-literalsubjects: Should the subjects of RDF statements be
allowed to be literals
CONTINUE: the situation is unclear. In a sense, literals are
resources. Restrictions are largely (but not entirely) syntactic.
NB: Must RESOLVED AS CONTINUE since this is explicitly out of scope for this WG:
Removing current restrictions in the RDF model (e.g., literals not allowed as subjects, or blank nodes as predicates)
Richard proposes to CLOSE, but future WGs may wish to address:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0345.html
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- RDF-ISSUE-49 (revisit-rdfms-quoting): Revisit 'Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals' [Cleanup tasks] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-05-03)
Related notes:
[tomayac]: literals as subjects cant be closed
4 May 2011, 15:55:35RESOLVE to POSTPONED. This issue is explicitly for this working group as chartered.
David Wood, 4 May 2011, 15:57:49Display change log
