Literals are resources [was Re: missing (and incorrect) RDFS axioms]

The new semantics draft has internal integrity on this question.

In terms of our mission to clean up and clarify M&S, the interal integrity
of our recommendation is central.

This integrity, and our mission, would be undermined by forcing Pat to not
say that literals are resources or back-peddling on the

<eg:a> <eg:p> "a" .
=>
<eg:a> <eg:p> _:b .

entailment.

RDFS should say this as well.

rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .

(a waste of breath, Dan?)

These decisions have been made, perhaps by stealth. They were not decisions
that I supported; but now that we have made them I support them, and wish
the group to not call them into question.

I suggest that anyone who strongly feels that literals are not resources
should ask the chair to reopen the above entailment, and hence the tidy
entailment, on the basis of the new information that were not aware that
voting for the tidy entailment committed them to literals-are-resources.

The editor's job is to clearly articulate the group's consensus.
He has done this.

If the group are not happy with their consensus now that they see it
articulated then that is another issue which should not be being discussed
as a comment against the editor's work.

Jeremy

Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 04:48:44 UTC