- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:32:59 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Monday, September 17, 2001, at 03:23 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > 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? Not sure if this sheds light, but danbri is fond of quoting this from the schema spec: [[[ Although the RDF data model does not allow for explicit properties (such as an rdf:type property) to be ascribed to Literals (atomic values), we nevertheless consider these entities to be members of classes (e.g., the string "John Smith" is considered to be a member of the class rdfs:Literal.) Note: We expect future work in RDF and XML data-typing to provide clarifications in this area. ]]] I think this is a bit of a kludge. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 16:33:02 UTC