- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:43:54 -0600
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, >patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> >To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org> >Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> >Sent: 11 December, 2002 00:01 >Subject: Re: What are literals? > > >> >> >Can someone remind me what we decided about whether literals were >> >resources or not? >> >> Actually it kind of follows from the MT that simple literals must be >> resources, since >> 1. they denote themselves, and >> 2. anything that is denoted must be a resource. >> >> Typed literals are another kettle of fish, of course. >> >> >Specifically, I'm trying to revise a sentence in the Primer that says: >> > >> >"All classes are implicitly subclasses of class rdfs:Resource (since >> >the instances belonging to all classes are resources)" >> > >> >against which there is a question concerning rdfs:Literal. >> >> There shouldnt be. Anything that can be in a class must be a resource. >> >> Pat > >This seems to me to mean that the following holds > > rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource . > >which I guess I'm OK with, given the current definition of literals >(typed or otherwise). > >Perhaps that should be explicitly stated in the semantics doc? Well, all such subClassOfs and rdf:type's which refer to rdfs:Resource are omitted, since they are all vacuous. Everything has type resource and (hence) every class is a subclass of resource. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 13:44:00 UTC