- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 11:06:17 +0000
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:34 PM 11/8/02 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> > > > rdf:object rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . *
> > >
> > > ...did we agree that all literals are resources?
Er... what *is* a literal here: if, for some datatype, we have:
v = L2V(l)
is l the literal, or v? I think v is a resource (member of IR) but l is
not necessarily so.
I think Jeremy's argument applied to v.
Intuitively, I would say that l is the literal, not v. E.g. the MT draft,
section 1.2, describes a literal as a "referring expression".
But in another message, Pat says:
>aaa ppp <any literal, even a bad one>
>
>-->
>
>aaa ppp _:xxx .
>_:xxx rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
which seems to be saying that v is the literal (if a literal is any member
of rdfs:Literal). This is borne out by the MT draft (e.g. section 3.3.1).
I'm beginning to wonder what is the point of rdfs:Literal. Fort example,
looking at:
rdfs:comment rdfs:range rdfs:Literal
that simply seems to say that the range is a value that *can* be expressed
using a literal, not that it *must* be expressed that way. Which I think
is quite right. Why do we care?
#g
--
At 09:34 PM 11/8/02 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> > > > rdf:object rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . *
> > >
> > > ...did we agree that all literals are resources?
>
>well, it's in the current MT draft
>rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Resource .
>(and I, for one, strongly agree)
>
> > regardless, it's redundant to say range Resource.
> > Please let's don't.
>
>I agree and try to avoid it in
>http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules
>(which is still in a web with owl)
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 06:35:28 UTC