in the definition of RDFS (official document) there is:

<rdf:Property about="">
  <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource=""/>
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">object</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>The object of an RDF statement.</rdfs:comment>
  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource=""/>

I see that there is not a statement about that rdfs:range of the property rdf:object. In consideration that the range of a property is the union on any single range I think that we can add this two lines at the definition of the property rdf:object

  <rdfs:range rdf:resource=""/>
  <rdfs:range rdf:resource=""/>

so that an rdf:object can be either an rdfs:Resource or an rdfs:Literal.

A question arise sponteneusly: Can an instance of the class rdfs:Literal be a resource? I hope NO, because the definition of the rdfs:domain of the property rdf:subject is an rdfs:Resource and we know that we cannot have as a subject of an RDF statement a stupid string on characters. Do am I right?


<rdf:Property rdf:about="">
  <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource=""/>
  <rdf:type resource=""/>
  <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource=""/>
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">isDefinedBy</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>Indicates the namespace of a resource</rdfs:comment>
  <rdfs:range rdf:resource=""/>
  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource=""/>

it seems to me that there is 2 (two) definition of isDefinedBy in terms of rdf:type.

The first line for me is the same statement than the one in line 3. Am I right?

all the best
Franco Salvetti

p.s. sorry if I bother you but I'am working on it for my thesis and I see that there are many things not well definited

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 10:59:40 UTC