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

Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:23:53 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021030181249.02ff0f98@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

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
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 13:21:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:35 EDT