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

Re: rdfs:Literal question

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:55:22 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
My take is that it provides a way of characterizing the things that 
literals denote.

So even if
   LLL rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
is not valid syntax, I think it's reasonable to be able to say that LV
(as in XL: qLiteral -> LV) is the same as ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)).

I think this is consistent with the material Aaron refers to in his 
response to you.  I think that material also hints at the possibility of 
recognizing different sub-types of rdfs:Literal.


At 03:23 PM 9/17/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>A question.
>RDFS has a class named rdfs:Literal. Presumably this is supposed to be the 
>class of all literal values, right? So it ought to be the case that for 
>any literal LLL, this would be true:
>LLL rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
>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?
>(This came up when I was trying to characterize valid inference in RDFS, 
>by the way. Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I've only just 
>noticed it.)
>Pat Hayes
>IHMC                                    (850)434 8903   home
>40 South Alcaniz St.                    (850)202 4416   office
>Pensacola,  FL 32501                    (850)202 4440   fax
>phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 16:59:20 UTC

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