RE: Subjects as Literals

Toby Inkster wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200
>"Michael Schneider" <> wrote:
>> So, if
>>     :s "lit" :o .
>> must not have a semantic meaning, what about
>>     "lit" rdf:type rdf:Property .
>> ? As, according to what you say above, you are willing to allow for
>> literals in subject position, this triple is fine for you
>> syntactically. But what about its meaning? Would this also be
>> officially defined to have no meaning?
>It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. 

What do you mean by "false statement"? That it is contradictory, as in OWL

      ex:x owl:differentFrom ex:x .

? If so, then this would be a very strong meaning. Quite different from
having no meaning at all.

>The same as the following is a false statement:
>	foaf:Person a rdf:Property .

Under which semantics is this a false statement?


Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
WWW  :
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 14:30:40 UTC