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

Re: missing (and incorrect) RDFS axioms

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 20:20:59 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, 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>

At 14:47 08/11/2002 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:

>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.

My understanding is:

   - Pat asked the question recently
   - there has been no formal decision
   - Jeremy argued there was in effect because

a b "foo"


a b _:l .

"foo" must be a resource.

I don't grok that one myself.

   - Pat got various bits of feedback
   - whatever the MT says is what Pat is recommending
   - we make the decision by endorsing or not the MT.
   - I hope he recommends we say nothing on the subject this time round 
otherwise we'll get a load of questions asking how to express literals as 
subjects in rdf/xml.  I'd rather we said nothing, or maybe gave the 
implementors some advice to allow for it happening in the future, but not now.

And I'm too tired to go look up what Pat actually decided.

Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 15:19:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC