Re: missing (and incorrect) RDFS axioms

On 8 Nov 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:

> > > rdf:object	rdfs:range  rdfs:Resource .		*
> >
> > ...did we agree that all literals are resources?
>
> regardless, it's redundant to say range Resource.
> Please let's don't.

If there were some er... 'things' that aren't resources (eg. literals),
then this wouldn't be redundant. I've lost track of our decisions on that
front, hence the prev. msg.

Dan

Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 14:47:46 UTC