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

Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:53:18 +0200
Message-ID: <000b01c280cb$b8f07d00$6d9316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 31 October, 2002 11:36
Subject: Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema

> At 10:05 31/10/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> [...]
> >If literals are resources, then the RDF normative specs should define
> >
> >    rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .
> >
> >If the normative specs do not define that, then I will rightly
> >conclude that literals are not resources.
> I'm not sure you can conclude that.  All you can really conclude is that 
> you don't know whether they are or not.

Well, since the specs are going to be defining a rather static
ontology, it's unlikely that my system is going to encounter
statements about the core RDF vocabulary that would be authoritative,
in fact, for system integrity issues, I may rightfully choose to
ignore any statements which extend the semantics of the core
RDF vocabulary which are not explicitly and already defined by
the specifications.

So, yes, in fact I do think it is quite reasonable to conclude that
literals are not resources, if the RDF specs don't explicitly say
they are.

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 05:53:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC