At 08:53 31/10/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: >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. Where? > We're either going to keep these languages separate, or we're not, and > either way, we need to be consistent. BrianReceived on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:12:03 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:36 EDT