Re: Terminology: How to call "IRI or blank node"?

It gets even worse, the longer I think about this. What about the case of

ex:owns
     rdfs:domain ex:Person ;
     rdfs:range rdfs:Resource ;

Well, the above is supposed to mean that a Person can own any IRI or 
blank node. Or even any IRI would be enough.

How does one say that with the official terminology? The API-centric 
point of view had a simple answer - just assume that rdfs:Resource 
represents IRI or blank node, and rdfs:Literal represents "any literal".

Holger


On 12/19/14, 9:08 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
> On 12/19/14, 7:04 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> "Non-literal RDF Terms" is probably too bulky?
>
> "Non-literal nodes" may work better, but it's still not what I am 
> looking for. I would like to be able to concisely express "an engine 
> that checks all constraints for a given X" where X is either a "IRI or 
> blank node". Is there no shorter term for that? Most people outside of 
> formal W3C documents seem to use "Resource" for X, whether we like 
> that or not as spec writers. Even worse, you can instantiate the root 
> class rdfs:Resource and use rdfs:Resource in example snippets and 
> Turtle files of the system vocabulary delivered by this WG, yet it is 
> a "forbidden" term in the prose of the spec.
>
> Holger
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (sent from my mobile)
>> --
>> Prof. Axel Polleres, WU
>> url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 21:58, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com 
>> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Given that a lot of people equate "Resource" with "IRI or blank 
>>> node", what would be an alternative term that groups together these 
>>> two node types (excluding literals)?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>