- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:42:13 +0300
- To: tpassin@home.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@home.com] > Sent: 04 October, 2001 02:29 > To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org > Subject: Re: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S) > > > [<Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>] > To: <tpassin@home.com>; <www-rdf-logic@w3.org> > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 3:31 AM > Subject: RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S) > > > [...] > > > > > I suggest, then, that RDF is the right layer for resolving > > > this particular > > > issue (depending, of course, on how you end up fixing it). > > > > For treating typed literals as resources, yes, RDF is the > right layer. > > > > (but for treating two URIs that denote the same "thing" as > equivalent, > > no, RDF is IMO not the right layer, though probably RDFS is) > > > Yes, I concur. It's easier to see if you think of a URI not > as a label for > a node N, but as the subject of another statement about node > N, one that > asserts that N's identity is denoted by the URI. Then you > could easily have > URI nodes connected to nodes N and M - prefectly legal in > terms of a graph - > but it would take some semantics to figure out if M and N > were really the > "same". > > There's your other layer. Yup. And wouldn't that layer be defined in terms of RDFS? Patrick
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 04:42:22 UTC