W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > January 2004

Re: DRS guide -- usage scenario ?

From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:45:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200401152045.i0FKjX221581@pantheon-po04.its.yale.edu>
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

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.,

      <as_literal parseType="Literal">
         <Description about="#John">
	    <loves resource="#Mary/>

(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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:46:17 UTC