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

Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:16:27 +0200
Message-ID: <003301c28176$97def2d0$2380720a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "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: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 01 November, 2002 00:20
Subject: Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema


> 
> >[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
> >patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> >To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; "ext pat hayes" 
> ><phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> >Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> >Sent: 31 October, 2002 11:36
> >Subject: Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema
> >
> >
> >>  At 10:05 31/10/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> >>
> >>  [...]
> >>
> >>
> >>  >If literals are resources, then the RDF normative specs should define
> >>  >
> >>  >    rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .
> >>  >
> >>  >If the normative specs do not define that, then I will rightly
> >>  >conclude that literals are not resources.
> >>
> >>  I'm not sure you can conclude that.  All you can really conclude is that
> >>  you don't know whether they are or not.
> >
> >Well, since the specs are going to be defining a rather static
> >ontology, it's unlikely that my system is going to encounter
> >statements about the core RDF vocabulary that would be authoritative,
> >in fact, for system integrity issues, I may rightfully choose to
> >ignore any statements which extend the semantics of the core
> >RDF vocabulary which are not explicitly and already defined by
> >the specifications.
> >
> >So, yes, in fact I do think it is quite reasonable to conclude that
> >literals are not resources, if the RDF specs don't explicitly say
> >they are.
> 
> Well, sure; but be ready, when you meet someone who has concluded 
> that they ARE resources, to have him tell you that the specs don't 
> say the he is wrong, either.

Fine. Then as I consider this to be a non-trivial issue, I think
we should say explicitly one way or the other.

Patrick
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 02:16:29 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:55 EDT