W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > November 2001

Literals as subjects

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 08:03:14 -0500
To: "Www-Rdf-Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NFBBJNGEILIMIEFCFDIIOEMHCAAA.geoff@sover.net>
What's the difference between (using pso order)
	rdf:type "some text" rdfs:Literal
and
	rdfx:hasMember rdfs:Literal "some text"

assuming that there was such a predicate as rdfx:hasMember and:
	rdf:type a b -> rdfx:hasMember b a

...other than that the first is not valid rdf? But if it were, they'd be
saying the same thing, right?. Doesn't that point out that the restriction
on literals as subjects is somewhat arbitrary since it can be thwarted by
simply defining an inverse relationship?

There's a legitimate separate question about whether
	rdfx:hasMember rdfs:Literal "some text"
and
	rdf:value #xxx "some text"

are talking about the same node("some text") or two different nodes (so
there would be little value in making statements "about" literals since you
always end up "creating" a new node in doing so). But that problem is
distinct from whether the literal is allowed in the subject position.

rgds,
Geoff Chappell
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2001 09:39:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:16:02 UTC