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

Holger -

declaring rdfs:range rdfs:Resource is the same as not declaring 
rdfs:range at all, since rdfs:Resource functions as a default, as I 
understand it. I usually consider such situations as being "undeclared" 
-- that is, nothing useful has been said about the range, and in 
RDF->OWL interpretations ex:owns becomes an annotation property.

but I also think that stating this as "Person owns IRI" leads to 
confusion. Person owns <thing denoted by IRI or literal>. and 
rdfs:Resource includes literals. I don't know of a term that includes 
IRIs and blank nodes but not literals. In training I define literals as 
"dead ends" in the RDF space, which makes them a special case. I think 
this is what you are struggling with - how to separate the linkable 
terms in a node from the dead ends. It does seem that there SHOULD be a 
way to say this.

kc

On 12/18/14 11:56 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 16:12:36 UTC