Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema

At 11:24 30/10/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:

[...]

>>o rdfs:XMLLiteral is a subClass of rdf:Literal
>
>There is a possible snag here.

I thought there might be.

>I think we are (as a group) still somewhat unclear about the meaning of 
>rdf:Literal. In the MT I was very explicit that that class contained 
>literal *values*, not literals.

Yup.  Oh bu**er I see what you mean.  Or do I?  There is a value space for 
rdfs:XMLLiteral, say XMLVAL..  There is the set of things that literals 
(not the XML variety) denote, say LITVAL.  The  class extension of Literal 
is XMLVAL union LITVAL.  Does that work?

>  I was expecting a backlash, but nobody noticed :-). Now that datatyped 
> literals can denote non-strings, the difference between those two 
> interpretations of rdf:Literal is again rather important, so can I ask 
> the group to decide clearly and firmly which interpretation they want to 
> have? Note that if rdf:Literal is supposed to be the class of literals, 
> then all triples of the form
>
>aaa rdf:type rdf:Literal .
>
>will be false in all interpretations.

I don't follow that one.  We have been careful not to say whether literals 
are resources or not, but we all know they are really.

Brian