W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: The place of rdfs:Literal's in the world...

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:00:42 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020430145227.00ab8600@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:34 30/04/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>On 2002-04-29 20:49, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > At 09:50 29/04/2002 -0700, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > [...]
> > If y'all want it to actually be the set of literals, then we would need
> > to re-think this whole issue.
> >
> > Is there a problem here?  I just heard Pat say no.
>
>I thought he asked a question. I didn't hear a 'no'.


From:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0514.html

[[
 >
 >Do we have a conflict here between the graph syntax and
 >the general semantics of RDF Classes?

I don't think so.
]]

Sounds kinda in the negative to me.

[[
 >Perhaps rdfs:Literal is not an rdfs:Class?

Well, Im assuming it is a class, so it can't be the set of literals.
That is my point. If y'all want it to actually be the set of
literals, then we would need to re-think this whole issue.
]]

Sorry if I'm not following the argument here.  I saw an invitation to
reconsider a fundamental part of the model theory, and I haven't
understood what problem might cause us to do that.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 10:03:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:39 EDT