Re: Subjects as Literals

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200
"Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de> wrote:

> So, if 
> 
>     :s "lit" :o .
> 
> must not have a semantic meaning, what about
> 
>     "lit" rdf:type rdf:Property .
> 
> ? As, according to what you say above, you are willing to allow for
> literals in subject position, this triple is fine for you
> syntactically. But what about its meaning? Would this also be
> officially defined to have no meaning?

It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. The
same as the following is a false statement:

	foaf:Person a rdf:Property .

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 13:36:31 UTC