W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: What are literals?

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:11:29 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b04ba1e6475fb20@[]>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, danbri+rdfs@w3.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
>>  >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.
>Well, see my comments about the text in the Vocabulary doc about
>rdf:object. It seems to presume that rdfs:Literal and rdfs:Resource
>are disjunct. If they are not, then that text (and possibly other
>text) needs to be adjusted accordingly.

Yes, this text has my mind reeling. My understanding of the 
reification vocabulary was that the rdf:subject and rdf:object of a 
reified triple were the things that the subject and object of the 
original triple denoted. In which case the rdf:object is always a 
literal VALUE rather than the literal itself, so yes, indeed, it can 
be said to be in rdfs:Resource. So the range is rdfs:Resource, and 
this should be altered.


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 Thursday, 12 December 2002 11:11:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC