RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

> -----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