- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:52:20 +0200
- To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At a guess ... <rdfs:Datatype rdf:about="&rdfs;XMLLiteral"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"> </rdfs:Datatype> <rdfs:Datatype rdf:about="&rdfs;StringLiteral"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"> </rdfs:Datatype> the subClassOf relationship depends partly on whether the model theory contains a rule that turns any datatype into a subclass of rdfs:Literal. I am neutral as to whether it should or not. If there isn't such a rule then maybe we would want to rename StringLiteral as Literal and not have the subClassOf relationships at all. I can take an action to add label and description properties to these if this proposal is still alive after the telecon! Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk] > Sent: 25 October 2002 12:14 > To: Jeremy Carroll > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: rdfs:StringLiteral and rdfs:XMLLiteral > > > > Can you please construct some proposed RDF/XML vocab for these, for > Dan Brickley to add to the RDF Vocab doc, for the WG to see. > > I expect they are both rdf:type rdfs:Datatype yes? > > Dave >
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 07:52:31 UTC