- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:59:39 -0600
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- 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. IMO, the question is left open. You are free to decide it one way or the other, at your convenience. The MT is careful to be agnostic on the issue. > >Datatype values, on the other hand, are. Indeed. > 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. Right. Maybe we should rename rdfs:Literal to be rdfs:ThingAtPointyEnd. 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
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 11:59:54 UTC