Re: simple fix

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: simple fix
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:59:52 -0500

> 
> 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

Yeah, well, except that the tools that this is supposed to be helping,
are those that don't view plain literals as being the same as rdf:text
datatyped literals.  

peter

Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 23:19:06 UTC