- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:45:33 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> > [me]
> > I guess I don't know what "literal" means. What does it mean? (Just
> > point me to the right section of the right technical working group
> > recommendation working paper formal normative note.)
>
> Sure.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Datatypes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#2.1
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.1
>
I forgot about XML Literals. I always breezed over them when reading,
on the assumption that they concerned someone already committed to
some domain-specific XML dialect they wanted to include in an RDF
document.
But now! It seems obvious that this is a terrific way to quote RDF
stuff. Why has no thought of this before? We should certainly
broaden our definition of atomic formula to include "triples as XML
literals." E.g.,
<Atomic_formula>
<as_literal parseType="Literal">
<Description about="#John">
<loves resource="#Mary/>
</Description>
</as_literal>
</Atomic_formula>
(where I've left off namespace prefixes for speed).
I don't think you can say much in Owl about the value of the
as_literal property. But DRS-knowledgeable parsers know that what's
inside must parse as a single RDF triple.
I shall change the DRS Guide forthwith.
--
-- Drew McDermott
Yale University CS Dept.
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2004 15:45:34 UTC