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

Re: missing (and incorrect) RDFS axioms

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 14:47:41 -0500 (EST)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <fmanola@attbi.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0211081446170.26938-100000@tux.w3.org>

On 8 Nov 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:

> > > rdf:object	rdfs:range  rdfs:Resource .		*
> >
> > ...did we agree that all literals are resources?
>
> regardless, it's redundant to say range Resource.
> Please let's don't.

If there were some er... 'things' that aren't resources (eg. literals),
then this wouldn't be redundant. I've lost track of our decisions on that
front, hence the prev. msg.

Dan
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 14:47:46 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:01 EDT