W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2003

Re: relationship of rdfs:Literal to rdfs:Resource

From: Karsten Otto <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:53:57 +0200 (CEST)
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309151345250.32472-100000@hobbes.inf.fu-berlin.de>

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > > If I wanted to http://www.ninebynine.org/2003/09/number#_10 to refer
> > > to the resource represented by "10"^^xsd:integer
> >
> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ninebynine.org/2003/09/number#_10">
> >    <eg:IsDivisibleBy>2</eg:IsDivisibleBy>
> >    <rdf:value
> > rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema/#integer">10</rdf:value>
> > </rdf:Description>
> You seem to be using rdf:value as if it were owl:sameAs, saying the
> number 10 has a value which is the number 10.  That doesn't seem like
> a great use of rdf:value to me, although I do see its appeal.  Am I
> misunderstanding?  (I just checked over a few sources.... [1] [2]
> [3].)

Jumping into the fray...

You are right, this is not a good use of rdf:value, as you can have

_:a rdf:value "10".
_:a ex:divisibleBy "2".

and also

_:b rdf:value "10".
_:b ex:divisibleBy "2".

where _:a and _:b are different nodes in the graph! Considering your
original question, this obviously is not what you wanted. The problem
is that rdf:value has no formal meaning in the model theory. So IMHO
you are better off by using owl:sameAs.

Of course, you could also state

_:a owl:sameAs _:b.

to make the chaos perfect... :-)

Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 07:55:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT