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?

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 03:53:39 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:51 EDT