Re: Terminology: How to call "IRI or blank node"?

On Dec 20, 2014 2:41 AM, "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/20/14, 6:53 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>
>> * Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> [2014-12-19 11:15-0500]
>>>
>>> Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 12/18/2014 03:58:25
PM:
>>>
>>>> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
>>>> To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
>>>> Date: 12/18/2014 04:04 PM
>>>> Subject: Terminology: How to call "IRI or blank node"?
>>>>
>>>> Given that a lot of people equate "Resource" with "IRI or blank node",
>>>> what would be an alternative term that groups together these two node
>>>> types (excluding literals)?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Holger
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How about "subject node"?
>>
>> That could be confusing if we're also talking about the position of
>> terms (e.g. subject). I propose for our internal purposes, we mint the
>> term "NonLiteral". If we end up using that in the long-run, it will at
>> least be intuitive and umambiguous.
>
>
> We need a URI for that, so that we can say that "every value of a given
property must be a resource". Basically a way to say "anything that can
appear as a subject in a triple (and therefore can have its own
properties). We have always used rdfs:Resource for that and it worked well
in practice - and rdfs:Literal to say "every datatype". rdfs:NonLiteral
does not exist. OWL had owl:ObjectProperty and owl:DatatypeProperty, and if
you left their range empty then they had that default interpretation. How
was this ever supposed to work in RDF Schema?

RDFS never needed to address this distinction (arguably because it's not s
schema language). It is certainly better to mint a new term than to confuse
the meaning of an existing term.

> Holger
>
>