rdfs:Literal question

A question.

RDFS has a class named rdfs:Literal. Presumably this is supposed to 
be the class of all literal values, right? So it ought to be the case 
that for any literal LLL, this would be true:

LLL rdf:type rdfs:Literal .

But that's syntactically illegal. In fact it is impossible to say 
that literal has any properties in RDF, so why do we have a class in 
RDFS of things that we aren't allowed to say are in a class?

(This came up when I was trying to characterize valid inference in 
RDFS, by the way. Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I've 
only just noticed it.)

Pat Hayes
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 16:23:35 UTC