- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:14:35 +0000
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: ext pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
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. Brian
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:12:03 UTC