- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:55:22 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
My take is that it provides a way of characterizing the things that literals denote. So even if LLL rdf:type rdfs:Literal . is not valid syntax, I think it's reasonable to be able to say that LV (as in XL: qLiteral -> LV) is the same as ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)). I think this is consistent with the material Aaron refers to in his response to you. I think that material also hints at the possibility of recognizing different sub-types of rdfs:Literal. #g -- At 03:23 PM 9/17/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >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 ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 16:59:20 UTC