W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2003

Re: RDF Semantics: partial review

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:17:39 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 16:54 07/11/03 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>Let me suggest that I adopt the following simplified convention, which I 
>think will be sufficient. A name (as now) is a URI or typed literal. A 
>vocabulary is a set of names. The vocabulary OF a graph is the set of 
>names that occur in the graph as the subject, object or predicate of a 
>triple. Interpretations are defined on a vocabulary, usually that of a graph.

This reminds me of a concern I had some time ago about the class 
rdfs:Literal being indistinguishable from rdfs:Resource [1].  (Er, what I 
claimed was LV being indistinguishable from IR.)

Does the new convention help this?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0324.html
Comment labelled:
[For discussion]
Section 1.3, para 5 about LV:

Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2003 09:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:26 UTC