Re: <p> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:Literal> (Really quick question)

>Perhaps I should rephrase the question... Can an anonymous node be used
>where a literal is required?

As far as I know (?), literals are not *required* anywhere in the RDF syntax.

>In other words, is it possible the have an
>anonymous literal.

I would say that was meaningless. However, it is possible for an 
anonymous node (or a uriref, for that matter) to denote a literal 
value, ie to have the same denotation as a literal.

Pat Hayes

>-AM
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Aaron Michal" <amichal@intellidimension.com>
>To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 4:36 PM
>Subject: <p> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:Literal>
>
>
>>  Perhaps this is something that has already been discussed but I want to
>>  check an assumption. Under RDF Model Theory [1], are the following triples
>>  legal RDFS?
>>
>>  <_s> <p> <_o>
>>  <p> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:Literal>
>>
>>  What about under http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/ or the
>>  previous version?
>>
>>  -AM
>>
>>  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-mt-20010925/
>>
>>
>>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 16:02:31 UTC