Pat Hayes wrote:
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 :-)
thus is N3 valid RDF? (I read yes, but want/need to hear that's right!)
ty so far,
nathan
