W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:05:08 +0200
Message-ID: <00d101c280b4$3a9be8c0$6d9316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

> >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.
> Do we? I don't think they are any more. Literal values might or might 
> not be, but literals???

The way that RDF says that something is a "resource" is to say
that it is a member of the class rdfs:Resource.

If literals are resources, then the RDF normative specs should define

   rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .

If the normative specs do not define that, then I will rightly
conclude that literals are not resources.

IMO, literals (lexical forms) are not members of rdfs:Resource.

Datatype values, on the other hand, are. I.e., it should be defined that

   rdfs:Datatype rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .

I.e., that all members of all value spaces of all datatypes are resources.

If by "literal value" Pat means a datatype value, the thing at the pointy
end of a L2V mapping, then I think we are in agreement on this.

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 03:05:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:17 UTC