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

Re: RDFS rule 0

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:05:12 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101008b7d65a562449@[]>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Jos & Pat appear to agree on:
>>   -------------------------------------------------------
>>| 0c | xxx aaa yyy.     | yyy rdf:type rdfs:Resource.   |
>>   -------------------------------------------------------
>I don't. :-(.
>I had taken the position of the WG as being agnosticism as to whether
>Literals is-a-subset-of Resources or not.

Right, so do I.  See below. I don't want to open this hornet's nest either.

>[Although looking back at a heated debate which I was not part of - it is
>unclear to me what the resolution was - no no no - don't restart that one].
>This change appears to me to be unnecessary, particularly at this stage.
>The agreement of the teleconference was to publish the draft with minor
>editorial changes. I do not perceive this change as minor since it steps on
>a landmine.
>Hence I *OBJECT* to publication of a working draft including rule 1C from
>Sorry, & I really want publication to go ahead, but without 0c/1C.

I think you will find that 1c is OK. It deliberately uses the form

xxx aaa uuu .   --->   uuu rdf:type rdfs:Resource .

where uuu is required to NOT be a literal, in order to block the case 
that you object to, and leave the question open.  The rules already 
did this in places that would have produced a triple with a literal 
in the subject position, for just this reason.

In any case this is required by N-triples syntax at the present: the form

xxx rdf:type rdfs:Resource .

is syntactically illegal, and hence not a triple,  if xxx is a literal, right?

>[I am also aware that there are complications in these area even without
>rule 0c. I was waiting until after publication to start discussing those
>complications, since in  my opinion, what we agree on is very worthy of
>publication, and raising hornet's nest will be more productive once we have
>the model theory out of the door.]

I agree.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 12:05:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC