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

Re: What are literals?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:03:02 +0200
Message-ID: <00c801c2a286$74f4e8c0$2482720a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <danbri+rdfs@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>; "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; <danbri+rdfs@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 12 December, 2002 18:53
Subject: Re: What are literals?

> At 10:11 12/12/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
> [...]
> >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.
> The vocab doc needs work.  It will get it.  Stick to what we have decided 
> and expect it to come into line.

Right. The point was simply to confirm that we all agree that

    rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .

and secondly, if that's the case, that perhaps the MT should say
so explicitly.

Received on Friday, 13 December 2002 04:04:18 UTC

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