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 15:49:14 +0200
Message-ID: <000501c280e4$4d0b24f0$6d9316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>; "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 31 October, 2002 15:53
Subject: Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema


> The RDF normative specs may or may not define literals as resources, but 
> if they do, they better not do it by saying:
> 
>  >>>
>  >>>   rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .
>  >>>
> 
> because classes (including Literal and Resource) and subclasses are not 
> defined in RDF, they are defined in RDFS (note the namespace prefix). 
> M&S said literals and resources were disjoint, but didn't do it using 
> declarations involving classes.  We're either going to keep these 
> languages separate, or we're not, and either way, we need to be consistent.
> 
> --Frank

Quite so, Frank. I was thinking RDF+RDFS specs but only wrote
RDF. I agree that it is at the RDFS layer that such a relation
would be defined, though think that it should not be defined
at any layer.

Patrick

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


> 
> Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > [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.
> > 
> > Patrick
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
> 202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
> mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 08:49:18 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:36 EDT