RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

> ... but you can't apply that to
> literals because they can't be the subject of statements 
> (unless that rule
> gets changed).

This was one of my motivations for exploring the idea of tossing
out literals altogether, per se, and instead adopting a means
by which literals would be "first class" resources.

Now, granted, a typed data value such as "5" is pretty semantically
"anemic", and there's probably not very many useful statements that
one could make about such 'resources', but at least you *could*
make statements if you needed to if they were in fact first class
resources represented by URIs, and it would simplify (IMO) the
whole enchilada by not having to distinguish between typed data
literal resources and any other kind of resources. The conceptual
model then becomes simpler and the serialization model both
simpler and more consistent.
  
> I suggest, then, that RDF is the right layer for resolving 
> this particular
> issue (depending, of course, on how you end up fixing it).

For treating typed literals as resources, yes, RDF is the right layer.

(but for treating two URIs that denote the same "thing" as equivalent, 
no, RDF is IMO not the right layer, though probably RDFS is)

Regards,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Nokia Research Center                 Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 03:32:17 UTC