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

Re: rdfs:Literal not rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 08 Mar 2002 17:33:29 -0600
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1015630410.3513.237.camel@dirk>
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 13:00, Patrick Stickler wrote:
[...]
> Though, in re-re-reading the RDFS rec, it remains clear to me,
> at least insofar as the original language is concerned, that
> members of the class rdfs:Literal are not members of the
> class rdfs:Resource.
> 
> The key criteria for being a member of rdfs:Resource appears
> to be the ability to occur as the subject of a statement.
> 
> Since literals cannot be subjects, they cannot be members of
> rdfs:Resource.
> 
> Right?

Nope. You've got a use/mention bug in your argument.

Syntactic literals can't occur in the subject position,
but URIs (or bNodes) in the subject position can
denote literal values.

e.g. http://example/vocab/#myString might denote
the same three character string literal denoted by "abc",
in which case it would be sensible to say

	<http://example/vocab/#myString> daml:equivalentTo "abc".
	<http://example/vocab/#myString> rdf:type rdfs:Literal.

even though RDF 1.0 syntax doesn't include the sentence

	"abc" rdf:type rdfs:Literal.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 18:33:24 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:15 EDT