- 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>
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 UTC