W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2003

Re: relationship of rdfs:Literal to rdfs:Resource

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:22:29 -0400
Message-ID: <3F65AF05.2060302@mitre.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Rahul Singh <kingtiny@cs.cmu.edu>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>

Nothing wrong with the use of rdf:value in this example;  rdf:value just 
doesn't tell you anything in particular.  The example might just as well be:

<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ninebynine.org/2003/09/number#_10">

There isn't anything in RDF that provides the same built-in semantics as 
owl:sameAs.  That's why there *is* owl:sameAs (and an OWL for it to go in).


Sandro Hawke wrote:

>>>If I wanted to http://www.ninebynine.org/2003/09/number#_10 to refer 
>>>to the resource represented by "10"^^xsd:integer
>><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ninebynine.org/2003/09/number#_10">
>>   <eg:IsDivisibleBy>2</eg:IsDivisibleBy>
>>   <rdf:value 
> You seem to be using rdf:value as if it were owl:sameAs, saying the
> number 10 has a value which is the number 10.  That doesn't seem like
> a great use of rdf:value to me, although I do see its appeal.  Am I
> misunderstanding?  (I just checked over a few sources.... [1] [2]
> [3].)
>     -- sandro
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfvalue
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdfValue
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0082.html
>     (this proposal appears to not have been adopted, but the
>     discussion following it is interesting.)

Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 07:56:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 6 January 2021 22:03:27 UTC