- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:58:44 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:21 AM 11/2/01 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>
>>I really don't see an issue here. Allowing literals as subjects in the
>>abstract graph, and in N-triples, doesn't change the RDF/XML syntax as
>>defined. Furthermore, if we use Pat's MT work in conjunction with RDFS
>>closures, we can explain how to apply XML data types with the existing
>>RDF/XML syntax (even if we can't express the graphs that result from RDFS
>>closure in the existing RDF/XML syntax).
>
>
>Oops, am I missing something. Graham, how should I write:
>
> "subject" <rdf:type> <rdf:Literal> .
>
>in RDF/XML?
You don't. I'm not sure why you would *need* to do so.
But if one says:
my:shoe shoe:size "10" .
and:
shoe:size rdfs:range xsd:integer .
(both of which *are* expressable in RDF/XML)
then (as I understand Pat's proposal), using RDFS closures, one can infer
the graph-statement that corresponds to:
"10" rdf:type xsd:integer .
(but relating this to the particular node above that is labeled with "10".)
i.e. the resulting *graph* closure may have literal-nodes in the subject
position, even though the RDF/XML syntax cannot express them directly.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 2 November 2001 09:34:35 UTC