- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:47:05 +0300
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hmmm... Well if literals are resources and all forms of literals have unambiguous and consistent global interpretation then the only thing blocking them from being subjects is the inability to express them as such in the RDF/XML. So it would seem to me that insofar as the abstract syntax and MT are concerned, literals would be valid subjects. Patrick _____________Original message ____________ Subject: Re: Literals are resources [was Re: missing (and incorrect) RDFS axioms] Sender: ext pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:12:14 +0300 >At 10:52 09/11/2002 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >[...] > >><eg:a> <eg:p> "a" . >>=> >><eg:a> <eg:p> _:b . >> >>entailment. > >That just means a bnode matches a resource or a literal. Bnodes say that something exists. The above says the literal value exists. Things that exist (in RDF) are resources. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Monday, 11 November 2002 05:50:23 UTC