Re: error?

>in the definition of RDFS (official document) there is:
><rdf:Property about="">
>   <rdfs:isDefinedBy 
>   <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">object</rdfs:label>
>   <rdfs:comment>The object of an RDF statement.</rdfs:comment>
>   <rdfs:domain 
>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?

Good question. My own take on this is that 'resource' means simply 
'entity', ie anything whatsoever. In which case, the answer is YES, a 
literal can 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 

Why cannot a string be the subject of a statement? Strings can have 
properties (such as being written in French, containing no numerical 
characters, being at most 64 characters long, having been composed on 
a certain date) and so they can legitimately be subjects of RDF 
assertions, surely? I would prefer it, in fact, if RDF allowed 
literals to be in the subject position: the restriction which 
prohibits this is an artifact of the arbitrary (and basically 
confused)  rules of XML syntax.

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 16:34:20 UTC