- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:03:11 +0100
- To: "'Enrico Franconi'" <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, "'Michael Kifer'" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: "'Jos de Bruijn'" <jos.debruijn@deri.org>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > Does anybody have *real-world* RDF experience with cases where truly
> > existential semantics of b-nodes is used?
>
> You don't need to go very far.
> It is needed in order to capture pure basic SPARQL with RDF
> entailment.
[...]
> Note that the triple
> "25"^^xsd:decimal rdf:type rdf:XMLLiteral .
> is not legal RDF, since literals can not appear in subject position.
("25" is a data literal, but is it an XML literal?)
Not allowing to express classification statements for
data literals (but instead imposing the corresponding
statement for a blank node) is clearly an anomaly of
the current RDF semantics and can't hardly be the basis
for any requirement on RIF.
Isn't there a plan already to remove this anomaly of RDF 1.0?
-Gerd
--------------------------------------------
Gerd Wagner
Brandenburg University of Technology
at Cottbus, Germany
Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 00:06:06 UTC