Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema

>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
>patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; "ext pat hayes" 
><phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>Sent: 31 October, 2002 11:36
>Subject: Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema
>
>
>>  At 10:05 31/10/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>
>>  [...]
>>
>>
>>  >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.
>>
>>  I'm not sure you can conclude that.  All you can really conclude is that
>>  you don't know whether they are or not.
>
>Well, since the specs are going to be defining a rather static
>ontology, it's unlikely that my system is going to encounter
>statements about the core RDF vocabulary that would be authoritative,
>in fact, for system integrity issues, I may rightfully choose to
>ignore any statements which extend the semantics of the core
>RDF vocabulary which are not explicitly and already defined by
>the specifications.
>
>So, yes, in fact I do think it is quite reasonable to conclude that
>literals are not resources, if the RDF specs don't explicitly say
>they are.

Well, sure; but be ready, when you meet someone who has concluded 
that they ARE resources, to have him tell you that the specs don't 
say the he is wrong, either.

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 17:20:34 UTC