- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 14:15:06 -0400
- To: Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos@web.de>, Pat McBennett <patm@inrupt.com>
- Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Fri, 2022-10-14 at 18:59 +0200, Christian Chiarcos wrote: > > > > > > [PMcB} Ok, fair enough. It does make me wonder what's the value of > > stating that *anything* has a range of 'rdfs:Resource' then > > > > > [CC] This is the RDF 1.0 way of saying "not a Literal". Since the > introduction of rdfs:Literal, this is pointless, indeed. > This is not the case. From https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ A simple interpretation I of a vocabulary V is defined by: 1. A non-empty set IR of resources, called the domain or universe of I. 5. A mapping IL from typed literals in V into IR. 6. A distinguished subset LV of IR, called the set of literal values, which contains all the plain literals in V and much later IR = ICEXT(I(rdfs:Resource)) So resources include literals and the class extension of rdfs:Resource is the set of resources. The triple :p rdfs:range rdfs:Resource is not vacuous, as ranges cannot be inferred in RDFS, but it does not have peter
Received on Friday, 14 October 2022 18:15:22 UTC