- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:28:49 +0000
- To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Jiří Procházka wrote: > Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but I just stumbled upon this: > > "rdfs:Datatype is both an instance of and a subclass of rdfs:Class. Each > instance of rdfs:Datatype is a subclass of rdfs:Literal." > > "A typed literal is an instance of a datatype class." > > citing http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatype > > So I think this is valid: > > _:x rdf:type xsd:date . > _:x owl:sameAs "2008-01-01" . Not as such, did you mean: _:x rdf:type xsd:date . _:x owl:sameAs "2008-01-01"^^xsd:date . ? Which would, I believe, be valid. Dave > > Quite confusing, but might be useful for RDF systems which treat > literals as just one "type" (type from their point of view). > > Shame there is no such thing for language tags, or is there? > > Best, > Jiri Prochazka > > On 07/06/2009 07:43 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> Pat Hayes wrote: >>>>> p a rdf:Property ; >>>>> rdfs:domain rdfs:Literal ; >>>>> rdfs:range rdfs:Datatype . >>> >>> _:x p xsd:date . >>> _:x :seenAsLiteral "2008-01-01" . >> I tend to write these examples as >> >> _:x p xsd:date . >> _:x owl:sameAs "2008-01-01" . >> >> Semantically that has a literal as the subject, and it works around the >> legacy syntactic restriction >> >> Unfortunately the reasoning required to make this work means that simple >> RDF systems may well not get it. >> >> Jeremy >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 08:29:26 UTC