- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:59:06 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: 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. Agreed, except that since l can be used in an untyped literal, it has to be a resource in any case. All unicode strings, and pairs of them, are resources. > >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). No, no, no. The things in the class rdfs:Literal are the literal VALUES. There is no way to talk *about* RDF literals in RDF, just as there is no way to talk about urirefs (well, except, in each case, by using appropriate datatypes.) >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. It would be better called rdfs:LiteralValue, but I expect its too late to change that now. > 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. Me too, particularly as there isn't anything that can ONLY be expressed as a literal, given the possibility of defining a URN to mean anything the owner wants it mean. Pat >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> -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Saturday, 9 November 2002 15:58:43 UTC