Re: two comments on RDF Schema spec

Guus,

I've switched this from www-archive to www-rdf-comments, to register it 
as a Last Call comment. For detailed discussion lets take it back to 
www-archive.


* Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl> [2003-01-27 15:33+0100]
> Dan,
> 
> Two small commewnts on the RDF Schema spec:
> 
> >2.3 rdfs:Literal
> >
> >..
> >
> > rdfs:Literal is a subclass of rdfs:Resource.
> 
> Is this correct? I thought rdfs:Literal was not a resource.
> This is also what rdfs.rdfs states.

I believe "rdfs:Literal is a subclass of rdfs:Resource" to be 
the current wisdom of the Semantics spec. 

I'm not sure what you mean by rdfs.rdfs. If you mean the 
RDF schema at the RDFS namespace URI, that document is in need of 
updating. If you mean the RDF schema for RDF schema that is 
part of the LC working draft, we may have an issue.

> 
> >3.2 rdfs:domain
> >
> >[..] >
> 
> >The rdfs:range of rdfs:domain is the class rdfs:Class. 
> > This states that any resource that is the value of an
> > rdfs:domain property is an instance of rdfs:Class.
> 
> This leaves open the possibility that rdfs;Literal
> (an instance of rdfs:Class)  can be defined as a domain.
> Is this intended?

If there were a true statement that 
some property p1 had an rdfs:domain of rdfs:Literal, we would 
have a problem. I believe the view is that there are no such true 
statements. 

If there were a class defined for resources that aren't literals, 
perhaps we could express this more clearly in machine-friendly terms. Does 
OWL define such a class? 

Dan

Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 14:44:35 UTC