W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13)

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:23:01 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Good point!

My next question, then, would be:  can bNodes denote literal values?

(If we go down this route, I think the answer should be yes.)


At 05:56 PM 10/1/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>[... lots of stuff that I'd have to re-read in order
>to comment intelligently on...]
> > - Does it make sense for literals to have properties; e.g.
> >    "Property string" --length--> "15"
> > I think any such properties would be trivial, in the sense that they always
> > can be determined by examination of the literal itself.  So, if prohibited,
> > no expressive power is lost.
>No, now that we've decided that existential quantification
>is part of RDF, there *is* expressive power in properties
>of literals (strings, XML content constants, ...):
>         <http://www.w3.org/> dc:title _:s.
>         _:t charmod:lengthNumeral "15".
>that's true in interpretations where the/a title of
>the W3C home page is longer than 15 chars, and
>false in other interpretations.
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 07:12:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC