- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:23:53 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:24 30/10/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote: [...] >>o rdfs:XMLLiteral is a subClass of rdf:Literal > >There is a possible snag here. I thought there might be. >I think we are (as a group) still somewhat unclear about the meaning of >rdf:Literal. In the MT I was very explicit that that class contained >literal *values*, not literals. Yup. Oh bu**er I see what you mean. Or do I? There is a value space for rdfs:XMLLiteral, say XMLVAL.. There is the set of things that literals (not the XML variety) denote, say LITVAL. The class extension of Literal is XMLVAL union LITVAL. Does that work? > I was expecting a backlash, but nobody noticed :-). Now that datatyped > literals can denote non-strings, the difference between those two > interpretations of rdf:Literal is again rather important, so can I ask > the group to decide clearly and firmly which interpretation they want to > have? Note that if rdf:Literal is supposed to be the class of literals, > then all triples of the form > >aaa rdf:type rdf:Literal . > >will be false in all interpretations. I don't follow that one. We have been careful not to say whether literals are resources or not, but we all know they are really. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 13:21:21 UTC