- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:58:43 -0500
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
On Jan 15, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Drew McDermott wrote: >>> [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.) [the me me] >> 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. Like RDF/XML :) > But now! It seems obvious that this is a terrific way to quote RDF > stuff. Why has no thought of this before? I have! Why do you think I've been pushing literals for months now? :) > We should certainly > broaden our definition of atomic formula to include "triples as XML > literals." E.g., [snip] Cool. > 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. Actually, it's dependent on what your particular datatype reasoner will say. But, I think, one think a RDF/XML/OWL datatype reasoner might check is whether some quoted kb is consistent. I know N3 has some constructs for asserting stuff from a parsed literal, so there's some thought in this direction. I need to do a bit more thinking about this. > I shall change the DRS Guide forthwith. Cool! Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2004 15:58:46 UTC