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

Re: What are literals?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:53:23 +0200
Message-ID: <005f01c2a0f2$c2e0aff0$b29316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 11 December, 2002 00:01
Subject: Re: What are literals?

> >Can someone remind me what we decided about whether literals were 
> >resources or not?
> Actually it kind of follows from the MT that simple literals must be 
> resources, since
> 1. they denote themselves, and
> 2. anything that is denoted must be a resource.
> Typed literals are another kettle of fish, of course.
> >Specifically, I'm trying to revise a sentence in the Primer that says:
> >
> >"All classes are implicitly subclasses of class rdfs:Resource (since 
> >the instances belonging to all classes are resources)"
> >
> >against which there is a question concerning rdfs:Literal.
> There shouldnt be. Anything that can be in a class must be a resource.
> Pat

This seems to me to mean that the following holds

   rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .

which I guess I'm OK with, given the current definition of literals
(typed or otherwise).

Perhaps that should be explicitly stated in the semantics doc?

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 03:53:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC