- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:11:29 -0600
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, danbri+rdfs@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, >patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > > >> >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? >> >> Well, all such subClassOfs and rdf:type's which refer to >> rdfs:Resource are omitted, since they are all vacuous. Everything has >> type resource and (hence) every class is a subclass of resource. > >Well, see my comments about the text in the Vocabulary doc about >rdf:object. It seems to presume that rdfs:Literal and rdfs:Resource >are disjunct. If they are not, then that text (and possibly other >text) needs to be adjusted accordingly. Yes, this text has my mind reeling. My understanding of the reification vocabulary was that the rdf:subject and rdf:object of a reified triple were the things that the subject and object of the original triple denoted. In which case the rdf:object is always a literal VALUE rather than the literal itself, so yes, indeed, it can be said to be in rdfs:Resource. So the range is rdfs:Resource, and this should be altered. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 11:11:40 UTC