W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: rdfs:Literal question

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:32:59 -0500
Message-Id: <200109172035.f8HKZOb15299@theinfo.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
On Monday, September 17, 2001, at 03:23  PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

> But that's syntactically illegal. In fact it is impossible to 
> say that literal has any properties in RDF, so why do we have a 
> class in RDFS of things that we aren't allowed to say are in a 
> class?

Not sure if this sheds light, but danbri is fond of quoting this 
from the schema spec:

Although the RDF data model does not allow for explicit 
properties (such as an rdf:type property) to be ascribed to 
Literals (atomic values), we nevertheless consider these 
entities to be members of classes (e.g., the string "John Smith" 
is considered to be a member of the class rdfs:Literal.)

Note: We expect future work in RDF and XML data-typing to 
provide clarifications in this area.

I think this is a bit of a kludge.

[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 16:33:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:51 UTC