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

RE: rdfs:StringLiteral

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:26:18 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Patrick S tickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <b2cWl0WDjMWv.WcFfkRtL@mail.nokia.com>



_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	RE: rdfs:StringLiteral
Sender:	ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date:		Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:01:05 +0300



thanks Patrick I misspoke.

Should all datatypes be subclass of rdfs:Literal; 

	No. As that would mean that their value spaces
	are proper subsets of rdfs:Literal and e.g. an integer
	value is not itself a literal.

	In reality, the rdfs:Literal class is IMO a bug as it reflects
	a syntactic quality of an object, not it's semantics. 

	But since in the case of inlined literals the semantics
	directly reflects the syntactic representation of the
	literal, we could simply shorten rdfs:StringLiteral to
	rdfs:Literal which I think would reflect the original
	intent regarding its meaning -- that all inlined literals
	are members of rdfs:Literal, and are self denoting.

	Then, rdfs:Literal is an rdfs:Datatype, but has no 
	other datatype subclasses. Thus, rdfs:Literal,
	rdsf:XMLLiteral, and xsd:string are all unrelated
	datatypes.

	Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 03:29:16 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:34 EDT