Re: N3 rules: literals as subject and object in built-in functions

Jeff Thompson wrote:
> To clarify my question, in RDF syntax:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-intro
> it says "RDF literals, which can only be object nodes, become either XML
> element text content or XML attribute values."
> So, is the restriction that only object nodes can be literals merely
> a limitation of the XML representation?  (If so, a good reason to get
> away from XML....)

In http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html
Appendix: N3 Subsets
you can find that in the following N3 subsets
1/ N3 RDF
2/ N3 Rules
3/ N3
literal subj is allowed
e.g. 7 a n:prime.

> Jeff Thompson wrote:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/94/
>> In "Experience with N3 rules", it says built-in functions "are simply
>> represented as RDF properties",
>> and gives the example:
>>   { ex:d test:point ?x.  ?x math:sin ?y } =>  {...}
>>
>> Presumably ?x and ?y for math:sin would be a number literal.  But an RDF
>> graph only
>> allows the object to be a literal, not a subject.
>> 1. Am I right that RDF does not allow the subject of a triple to be a
>> literal?
>> 2. If so, how can a math built-in function that uses literals be the
>> predicate of an RDF triple?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Jeff