Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
> 
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>>> "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
>>>> or the predicate."
>>> Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing 
>>> literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to 
>>> the RDF semantics. (The non-normative inference rules for RDF and 
>>> RDFS and D-entailment given in the semantics document would need 
>>> revision, but they would then be simplified.)
>>
>> I have to wonder then, what can one all place in the s,p,o slots 
>> without changing the RDF semantics? literal and bnode predicates for 
>> instance? variables or formulae as in n3?
>>
>> read as: if a new serialization/syntax was defined for RDF what are 
>> the limitations for the values of node/object and relationship 
>> specified by the RDF Semantics?
> 
> None at all. The semantics as stated works fine with triples which have 
> any kind of syntactic node in any position in any combination. The same 
> basic semantic construction is used in ISO Common Logic, which allows 
> complete syntactic freedom, so that the the same name can denote an 
> individual, a property, a function and a proposition all at the same time.
> 
> Pat
> 
> PS. Its not a dumb question :-)

thus is N3 valid RDF? (I read yes, but want/need to hear that's right!)

ty so far,

nathan