- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:45:13 +0100
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
well, I think this rather fundamental...
whenever, in a sentence, we wish to say something
about a certain thing, we have to use, in this
sentence, not the thing itself but its name or
designation -- Alfred Tarski
So I believe that all those "certain things" are
rdfs resources, wether they be literal values
or URI referenced things, the names are just
different designations
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
"Jeremy
Carroll" To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
<jjc@hplb.hpl. cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
hp.com> Subject: RE: Quick reviews of new abstract syntax?
2002-11-05
03:39 PM
Thanks for opening a can of worms :) ... comment declined.
Jeremy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
> Sent: 05 November 2002 14:54
> To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Quick reviews of new abstract syntax?
>
>
>
> > Anyone up to doing a very quick review of the modified abstract syntax
> ...
> >
> >
> http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-11-05/rdf-co
> ncepts.html
>
>
> re: #section-Graph-syntax
> one comment I have is on
> The subject may not be an RDF literal.
>
> for a plain literal maybe OK, but a typed literal
> can be a perfect subject
> e.g.
> "10"^^xsd:int xsd:int "10".
>
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 09:48:03 UTC