- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 00:04:08 +0000
- To: "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi Toby, >> I think that's more of a question for one of the semweb lists, rather >> than here. My guess though, is that this would not work, since it >> would also imply that a literal is equivalent to a URI...which simply >> cannot be, because fundamental RDF premises say they are not the same. > > That's what I thought when I had this discussion a while ago, but it was > pointed out to me that rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource - they are > not disjoint. I think that's something different. It's true that we have 'the set of all things' (rdfs:Resource items) which includes 'the set of all literals' (rdfs:Literal items). But when it comes to identifying those things, RDF tells us that the identifiers to use for a literal is the literal itself, whilst all other resources can be identified with URIs. And the set of URI references (used to identify non-literal resources) and the set of literals (used to identify literal resources) *are* disjoint. Actually, this disjointedness is defined in relation to the *three* sets of bnodes, URIs and literals, which are indicated to be pairwise disjoint. So at a very fundamental level in RDF, URIs and literals are disjoint. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 00:04:46 UTC