- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:59:52 -0500
- To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <sandro@w3.org>, <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
On May 21, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> > Subject: Re: simple fix > Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:07:13 -0500 > >>>> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke >>>> Sent: 21 May 2009 21:01 >>>> To: public-rdf-text@w3.org >>>> Subject: simple fix >>>> >>>> >>>> Can't we just say, as strongly as we need to, that rdf:text is NOT >>>> for >>>> use in RDF? >> >> Too strong. All we need is that its not for use as the datatype URI >> in >> an RDF typed literal. It would be fine to allow RDFS to reason about >> the class, for example. Yes, that is pretty much what my earlier >> suggestion amounts to, in practice. > > [...] > > Umm, doesn't a prohibition against this effectively run counter to the > oft-stated goal that "RDF is supposed to be able to say anything about > anything"? Well, (a) to hell with that as a goal, and (b) actually, no. My point was that RDF can indeed say anything about rdf:text, just not use it as a datatype in a typed literal, a purely syntactic restriction. Pat > >> Pat > > peter > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 23:01:12 UTC