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

[<Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>]
To: <tpassin@home.com>; <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 3:31 AM
Subject: RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)


[...]
>
> > 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)
>
Yes, I concur.  It's easier to see if you think of a URI not as a label for
a node N, but as the subject of another statement about node N, one that
asserts that N's identity is denoted by the URI.  Then you could easily have
URI nodes connected to nodes N and M - prefectly legal in terms of a graph -
but it would take some semantics to figure out if M and N were really the
"same".

There's your other layer.

Cheers,

Tom P

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 19:24:26 UTC