- From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:30:23 +0100
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "'Danny Ayers'" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'semantic-web at W3C'" <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Hi Graham and Danny, We already use the XML Schema data types as owl:Class, see http://www.infowebml.ws/description/ontology-for-data-model/ontology-for-dat a-model.htm#XmlSchemaInformationRepresentation Regards, Hans -----Original Message----- From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Graham Klyne Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:07 PM To: Danny Ayers Cc: semantic-web at W3C Subject: Literals as subjects Danny Ayers wrote: > (I must confess I'm not sure where the logicians are at on the general > question - literals as subjects etc). My understanding is that the logicians have no fundamental problem with literals-as-subjects; cf. this response from Bijan Parsia about a question of mine to DAWG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Sep/0051.ht ml #g -- Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 09:34:17 UTC