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

On 12/22/2014 02:49 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/22/2014 01:45 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> On 12/21/2014 01:38 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> In RDF all resources can have property values, even literal values.
>>>
>>> peter
>> Hi Peter :)
>>
>> Could you please explain it little more and if possible share links to
>> relevant references?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
> 
> The original version of RDF, as described in the RDF Model and Syntax
> Specification http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/, talks
> about Resources and Literals, but does not indicate directly whether
> they are disjoint.  However, there is already the idea that anything is
> a resource and that anything can described by a URI.  See Section 2
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#basic and Section 5
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model for more
> information.
> 
> The original version of RDFS, http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-rdf-schema/,
> which never became a full W3C recommendation, has the initial class
> hierarchy, including rdfs:Resource, rdfs:Literal, rdfs:Class, and
> rdf:Property in Figure 2.   In this figure, rdfs:Resource is the
> universal class, with rdfs:Class, rdf:Property, and rdfs:Literal all as
> subclasses.  Here is the first direct requirement that literal values
> are resources.
> 
> The first formal treatment of RDF is in RDF Semantics
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/.  Here interpretations
> for RDF are first defined, in Section 1.3
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#interp, with the domain
> of an interpretation being the set of resources and a subset of the
> resources being literal values, as in the original version of RDFS. 
> Properties are another subset of the resources, which are linked to
> their extent, which is a set of pairs over the resources.  There is no
> requirement here that literals cannot be the first element of a property
> pair.
> 
> 
> One might argue that the formal treatment is a misreading of the
> informal 1999 description of RDF, but the ability for literals to have
> property values has definitely been in RDF since at least 2004.  This
> stance is also consistent with the dictum that URIs can identify
> anything, which includes literal values.
> 
> For example, one can say in RDF
> 
> ex:two rdf:type xsd:Integer .
> ex:two ex:prime xsd:true .
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thank you Peter :) I really appreciate you taking time to compile all
those references to share with us!