- From: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:50:30 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:42:48PM +0100, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >-- The wording of
> >
> > They have as their ranges [RDF-CONCEPTS] RDF plain literals,
> > which means that they link a skos:Concept to a character
> > string, not to another full-fledged RDF resource identified
> > with a URI.
> >
> > does not allow for the possibility of linking to a blank node.
>
> I guess you meant that the sentence in fact *does not disallow* the use of
> labelling properties with blank nodes. I suggest to add "or a blank node"
> at the end of the last sentence.
I think you are suggesting:
...not to another full-fledged RDF resource identified
with a URI or a blank node.
But my point was that the opposite of a range of RDF plain literals
is a range of "RDF resource", whether that resource is identified with
a URI or not. I think it should say something like:
They have as their ranges [RDF-CONCEPTS] RDF plain
literals, which means that they link a skos:Concept to a
character string (and not to other types of RDF resource).
In effect, it is the "non-literal value" thing again...
Tom
--
Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 16:51:19 UTC