Re: Critical literal semantics issue

The LCC version of the RDF Semantics as referenced on the RDF Core WG home
page, at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/,
*explicitly* does not make the class extension of rdfs:Literal have
any relationship whatsoever to LV.  There is even an entire section of the
document on the non-relationship between ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) and LV.

This decoupling of ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) and LV causes lots of problems,
as detailed in a message I sent to RDF comments
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0014.html).

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies.


From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Subject: RE: Critical literal semantics issue
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:27:57 +0200

> > > All this means is that rdfs:Literal denotes a class, but it 
> > says nothing
> > > about the class extension of rdfs:Literal.  
> > 
> > The class extension of rdfs:Literal is understood to be a subset of LV
> > (see further comments below), i.e. all resources which are 
> > denoted by a 
> > plain (untyped) literal or a valid typed literal are in LV and hence
> > instances of rdfs:Literal.
> 
> Or rather, the class extension of rdfs:Literal *is* LV.
> 
> Patrick