- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:40:28 -0600
- To: 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. Right, but that has ALWAYS been the case. The reason for the restriction is because literal subjects would break striped RDF/XML; its a purely syntactic XML issue. Just one more way that XML helps to make all our lives just that little bit worse than they could be. Pat > > >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 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 13:40:01 UTC