- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:05:54 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I think that the following test case indicates that (untyped) literal
(values) are resources:
John age "10" .
Jenny age "10" .
entails
John age _:b .
Jenny age _: b.
Moreover, I believe we approved (at least in principle) a variant of this.
I believe we should come clean and say that Literal values are a special
sort of resource. (I did not want this - but that is my view of where we
have arrived).
We could drop rdfs:Literal from the language on the grounds that we don't
know what it means.
I think it is useful to be able to say:
prop rdfs:range ??? .
to mean that prop takes values that approximate to old style literals - e.g.
strings, langstrings, xml things.
e.g. I think rdfs:description has such a range.
e.g.
<rdf:Description xml:lang="en" rdfs:description="My home page">
<rdfs:description rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">My home
page.</rdfs:description>
<rdfs:description rdf:parseType="Resource">
My <a xmlns="...XHTML..."
href="http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/jjc">home page</a>
</rdfs:description>
</rdf:Description>
all three triples look legit too me.
But maybe rdfs:description rdf:resource="http://example.org/somepage" might
also be legit.
Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:06:51 UTC