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

RE: RDFS rule 0

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:01:57 +0100
To: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEDACCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Oops - my mistake - I withdraw my objection.

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
> [mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
> Sent: 24 September 2001 15:52
> To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RDFS rule 0
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> > I had taken the position of the WG as being agnosticism as to whether
> > Literals is-a-subset-of Resources or not.
> 
> that is indeed true, and I think the current MT is
> reflecting that position:
>    -------------------------------------------------------
>   | 1c | xxx aaa uuu.     | uuu rdf:type rdfs:Resource.   |
>    -------------------------------------------------------
> where
>   uuu for any uriref or bNode (but not a literal).
> so 1c does,t apply for LV (and I had to know that
> and not cause the confusion with 0c, but I was
> biased by my implementation problerms,...)
> 
> --
> Jos
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 10:02:11 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:49 EDT