- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 06:07:21 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: > >> Pat Hayes wrote: >>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: >>>> "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject >>>> or the predicate." >>> Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing >>> literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to >>> the RDF semantics. (The non-normative inference rules for RDF and >>> RDFS and D-entailment given in the semantics document would need >>> revision, but they would then be simplified.) >> >> I have to wonder then, what can one all place in the s,p,o slots >> without changing the RDF semantics? literal and bnode predicates for >> instance? variables or formulae as in n3? >> >> read as: if a new serialization/syntax was defined for RDF what are >> the limitations for the values of node/object and relationship >> specified by the RDF Semantics? > > None at all. The semantics as stated works fine with triples which have > any kind of syntactic node in any position in any combination. The same > basic semantic construction is used in ISO Common Logic, which allows > complete syntactic freedom, so that the the same name can denote an > individual, a property, a function and a proposition all at the same time. > > Pat > > PS. Its not a dumb question :-) thus is N3 valid RDF? (I read yes, but want/need to hear that's right!) ty so far, nathan
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 05:08:30 UTC