Re: relationship of rdfs:Literal to rdfs:Resource

Very interesting discussion. Sorry, but I feel compelled to jump in.

> The things they represent are all resources---the things literals 
> represent (rdfs:Literal) are a subset of the things URI references 
> represent (rdfs:Resource). Right? 

Correct. Literals in RDF and Resources in RDF are both nodes in the RDF 
graphs. They are just slightly different kinds of nodes. Both can have 
edges coming into them (i.e. they can both be objects in a statement) 
but only resources can have edges going out from them (i.e. only 
resources can be subjects in a statement).

If you see the W3C RDF validator it makes the Literals in the graph as 
rectangles and resources as ovals. In Drive (www.driverdf.org) the 
literals (RdfLiteral class) are sub classes of resources (RdfNode class).

> 2. Does each instance of the plain literal "10" always refer to the 
> same identical resource? 

Every time a predicate in the graph refers to the literal "10", it 
points to the same node in the graph. In the graph there will only be 
one instance of the literal "10" and all statemenst that want ot refer 
to "10" will point to the same node in the graph. In other words if the 
literal 10 occurs in the graph then anything else that refers to the 
literal 10 (in the same datatype and language) will point to the same node.

> 3. Does each instance of the typed literal "10"^^xsd:integer always 
> refer to the same identical resource? 

Same answer as above. However the literal "10" will not be the same as 
the literal "10"^^xsd:integer because in the former the datatype is 
unspecified and defaults to er... the default for that locale or state 
or any application specific value. In the latter case it is specified to 
be an XML literal. It just so happens that an application will usually 
default to using xsd:literal as the datatype when the datatype is not 
specified. But in the RDF graph they will be distinct nodes and it is 
upto the application to figure out/assume that they are the same or to 
treat them differently.

> 4. How can I assert properties of the resources indicated by the plain 
> literal "10"? (If "10" really represents a resource, why can't that 
> thing have properties, too?)
>
> 5. If I wanted to http://www.ninebynine.org/2003/09/number#_10 to 
> refer to the resource represented by "10"^^xsd:integer, how would I do 
> that in a graph (via RDF+XML)? Why must I force the RDF processor to 
> have some sort of outside predefined knowledge to associate URIs with 
> resources designated by literals? If I can associate URIs with 
> resources in a graph, and literals stand for resources, why can't I 
> associate a URI with the resource designated by a literal? 

Suppose you wanted to say that "10 is divisible by 2". i.e. "10" has the 
property that it is divisible by "2". You can do the f ollowing...

<eg:MyNumber>
    <eg:IsDivisibleBy>2</eg:IsDivisibleBy>
    <rdf:value>10</rdf:value>
</MyNumber>

The above bit of RDF represents a graph that has a node (a blank node) 
that has a type (eg:MyNumber) that has two properties. rdf:value which 
points to the literal "10" and "eg:IsDivisibleBy" which points to the 
literal "2". You can make it more interesting by wrapping "2" up into a 
resource as follows

<eg:MyNumber>
    <eg:IsDivisibleBy rdf:resource="two">
    <rdf:value>10</rdf:value>
</MyNumber>

<eg:MyNumber rdf:nodeID="two">
    <rdf:value>2</rdf:value>
</eg:MyNumber>

The above graph has two resources of type eg:MyNumber (I am assuming 
that an ontology exists that gives meaning to eg:MyNumber) exist. One 
number (the one that have a value of 10) has a property of being 
divisible by another number (the one that has the value of 2).

I usually try to think of RDF purely in the graph sense and visualise 
the nodes and edges. It makes things easier for me. I also think of it 
in OO terms. That makes it easier for me.

And finally please forgive any typos and case issues in the RDF above. I 
think it is correct but I might have made a few boo-boos.

I hope this helps,

Rahul Singh,
kingtiny@kingtiny.net

http://www.kingtiny.net







Garret Wilson wrote:

>
> Hmm, this is giving me even more food for thought. Your responses lead 
> me to more questions:
>
> Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>> Syntactically, literals and URI references are distinct entities in 
>> an RDF graph, but they both denote things drawn from a set of resources.
>
>
> 1. Let me see if I understand this correctly: literals and URI 
> references are syntactically distinct. The things they represent are 
> all resources---the things literals represent (rdfs:Literal) are a 
> subset of the things URI references represent (rdfs:Resource). Right?
>
>> So, any value (e.g., the number 10) which might be denoted by a 
>> literal (e.g. "10"^^xsd:integer) could also be denoted by a URI (e.g. 
>> I might define the URI ref 
>> http://www.ninebynine.org/2003/09/number#_10 to have the number 10 as 
>> its intended denotation), and while they remain syntactically 
>> distinct entities, in the interpretation intended by my hypothetical 
>> definition, (and the presumed definition of xsd:integer) they would 
>> denote the same number 10.
>
>
> 2. Does each instance of the plain literal "10" always refer to the 
> same identical resource?
>
> 3. Does each instance of the typed literal "10"^^xsd:integer always 
> refer to the same identical resource?
>
> 4. How can I assert properties of the resources indicated by the plain 
> literal "10"? (If "10" really represents a resource, why can't that 
> thing have properties, too?)
>
> 5. If I wanted to http://www.ninebynine.org/2003/09/number#_10 to 
> refer to the resource represented by "10"^^xsd:integer, how would I do 
> that in a graph (via RDF+XML)? Why must I force the RDF processor to 
> have some sort of outside predefined knowledge to associate URIs with 
> resources designated by literals? If I can associate URIs with 
> resources in a graph, and literals stand for resources, why can't I 
> associate a URI with the resource designated by a literal?
>
> Garret
>
>

Received on Sunday, 14 September 2003 14:25:42 UTC