- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:34:08 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, fmanola@attbi.com, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> > > rdf:object rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . * > > > > ...did we agree that all literals are resources? well, it's in the current MT draft rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Resource . (and I, for one, strongly agree) > regardless, it's redundant to say range Resource. > Please let's don't. I agree and try to avoid it in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules (which is still in a web with owl) -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 15:34:56 UTC