Re: two comments on RDF Schema spec

At 14:44 27/01/2003 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:
>Guus,
>
>I've switched this from www-archive to www-rdf-comments, to register it
>as a Last Call comment. For detailed discussion lets take it back to
>www-archive.

I'm looking at this and seeing a request to check understanding, not yet 
the raising of an issue (yet, I expect one is coming), so I'm holding off 
till the issue is clear.



>* Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl> [2003-01-27 15:33+0100]
> > Dan,
> >
> > Two small commewnts on the RDF Schema spec:
> >
> > >2.3 rdfs:Literal
> > >
> > >..
> > >
> > > rdfs:Literal is a subclass of rdfs:Resource.
> >
> > Is this correct?

Request to check understanding.

>I thought rdfs:Literal was not a resource.
> > This is also what rdfs.rdfs states.

Not clear what rdfs.rdfs is.

[...]

> >
> > This leaves open the possibility that rdfs;Literal
> > (an instance of rdfs:Class)  can be defined as a domain.
> > Is this intended?

Request for confirmation of understanding.

Brian