- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:38:30 +0300
- To: "ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
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