Re: The place of rdfs:Literal's in the world...

On 2002-04-29 11:05, "ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com"
<jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:


> (the things are called 'resources', but no assumptions are made about
> the nature of resources.)

Are all 'resources' in the MT members of rdf:Resource?

If so, then literals are members of rdf:Resource, right, in
which case, rdfs:Literal should be rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource,
right?
 
If all 'resources' in the MT are not necessarily members of
rdf:Resource, then some further clarification is needed.

> For example, a triple of the form
> 
> <ex:a> <rdf:type> <rdfs:Literal> .
> 
> is legal even though 'ex:a' is a uriref rather than a literal.
> What it says is that I(ex:a) is a literal, ie that the uriref
> 'ex:a' denotes a literal.

This seems to conflict with what the Schema spec says, which
is that a member of rdfs:Literal is self-denoting. A uriref
is not self-denoting and therefore cannot be a member of
rdfs:Literal.

Do we have a conflict here between the graph syntax and
the general semantics of RDF Classes?

Perhaps rdfs:Literal is not an rdfs:Class? Perhaps it's
something different, a primitive "type" at a level below
that of rdfs:Class?

Patrick 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 04:35:24 UTC