- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:05:08 +0200
- 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. Patrick
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 03:05:11 UTC