Re: RDF Semantics for literals

Hello Pat,

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:05:45AM -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > Um... what about any of those statements:
> > 
> > rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf rdf:langString
> > 
> > rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf xsd:string
> > 
> > rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf xsd:int
> > 
> > Do they restrict the cardinality of the models?
> 
> Probably. These are all obviously insane, and I do not know off the top of my head what their implications would be, but they would also be insane. 

After some consideration, I'd say that at least the first two statements are
each unsatisfiable as IR must contain all strings and all <string,language tag>
pairs and strings and pairs are two different things. The third statement
would then be unsatisfiable if D contains xsd:int.

The background of my question is that it seems to me that RDF is not a formal
system in the strict sense because the interpretation of certain literals
is fixed. I wanted to exemplify this with a counterexample to the
Löwenheim Skolem theorem but it seems I failed :-)

I'd be interested in other reasons why those statements are insane. Identifying
properties and classes with strings or numbers does not seem especially weird 
to me.

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel