W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2008

Re: RDFa with multiple CURIEs as property..

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 00:04:08 +0000
Message-ID: <ed77aa9f0810311704j3ae521dbgcf802b4ed8bf97f3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi Toby,
>> I think that's more of a question for one of the semweb lists, rather
>> than here. My guess though, is that this would not work, since it
>> would also imply that a literal is equivalent to a URI...which simply
>> cannot be, because fundamental RDF premises say they are not the same.
>
> That's what I thought when I had this discussion a while ago, but it was
> pointed out to me that rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource - they are
> not disjoint.

I think that's something different.

It's true that we have 'the set of all things' (rdfs:Resource items)
which includes 'the set of all literals' (rdfs:Literal items). But
when it comes to identifying those things, RDF tells us that the
identifiers to use for a literal is the literal itself, whilst all
other resources can be identified with URIs.

And the set of URI references (used to identify non-literal resources)
and the set of literals (used to identify literal resources) *are*
disjoint.

Actually, this disjointedness is defined in relation to the *three*
sets of bnodes, URIs and literals, which are indicated to be pairwise
disjoint.

So at a very fundamental level in RDF, URIs and literals are disjoint.

Regards,

Mark

-- 
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 00:04:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 1 November 2008 00:04:46 GMT