- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:02:27 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 14:44 27/01/2003 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote: >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. I'm looking at this and seeing a request to check understanding, not yet the raising of an issue (yet, I expect one is coming), so I'm holding off till the issue is clear. >* 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? Request to check understanding. >I thought rdfs:Literal was not a resource. > > This is also what rdfs.rdfs states. Not clear what rdfs.rdfs is. [...] > > > > This leaves open the possibility that rdfs;Literal > > (an instance of rdfs:Class) can be defined as a domain. > > Is this intended? Request for confirmation of understanding. Brian
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 15:01:14 UTC