On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
"A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the
subject
or the predicate."
Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to
the RDF semantics. (The non-normative inference rules for RDF and
RDFS and D-entailment given in the semantics document would need
revision, but they would then be simplified.)
I have to wonder then, what can one all place in the s,p,o slots
without changing the RDF semantics? literal and bnode predicates for
instance? variables or formulae as in n3?
read as: if a new serialization/syntax was defined for RDF what are
the limitations for the values of node/object and relationship
specified by the RDF Semantics?
None at all. The semantics as stated works fine with triples which
have any kind of syntactic node in any position in any combination.
The same basic semantic construction is used in ISO Common Logic,
which allows complete syntactic freedom, so that the the same name can
denote an individual, a property, a function and a proposition all at
the same time.
Pat
PS. Its not a dumb question :-)
Best,
Nathan
ps: apologies if this is a dumb question, I fear i'd still be hear
next year trying to answer it myself though ;)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
