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

Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:05:54 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDIEJCCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


I think that the following test case indicates that (untyped) literal
(values) are resources:

John age "10" .
Jenny age "10" .

entails

John age _:b .
Jenny age _: b.


Moreover, I believe we approved (at least in principle) a variant of this.

I believe we should come clean and say that Literal values are a special
sort of resource. (I did not want this - but that is my view of where we
have arrived).

We could drop rdfs:Literal from the language on the grounds that we don't
know what it means.

I think it is useful to be able to say:

prop rdfs:range ??? .

to mean that prop takes values that approximate to old style literals - e.g.
strings, langstrings, xml things.

e.g. I think rdfs:description has such a range.

e.g.

<rdf:Description xml:lang="en" rdfs:description="My home page">
  <rdfs:description rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">My home
page.</rdfs:description>
  <rdfs:description rdf:parseType="Resource">
     My <a xmlns="...XHTML..."
           href="http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/jjc">home page</a>
  </rdfs:description>
</rdf:Description>

all three triples look legit too me.
But maybe rdfs:description rdf:resource="http://example.org/somepage" might
also be legit.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:06:51 EST

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