On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:03 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka <[email protected]>:
On 07/06/2010 03:35 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200
"Michael Schneider" <[email protected]> wrote:
So, if
:s "lit" :o .
must not have a semantic meaning, what about
"lit" rdf:type rdf:Property .
? As, according to what you say above, you are willing to allow for
literals in subject position, this triple is fine for you
syntactically. But what about its meaning? Would this also be
officially defined to have no meaning?
It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. The
same as the following is a false statement:
foaf:Person a rdf:Property .
Why do you think so?
I believe it is valid RDF and even valid under RDFS semantic
extension.
Maybe OWL says something about disjointness of RDF properties and
classes
URI can be many things.
It just so happens as a fact in the world, that the thing called
foaf:Person isn't a property. It's a class.
The world doesn't have facts like that in it. Classes and properties
are intellectual constructs, not the stuff of reality. Hell, if a
particle can be a wave, then surely a class can be a property. Anyway,
RDF doesn't make logical a priori rulings about these kind of
metaphysical segregations. For example, xsd:Number is a class, a
property and an individual in RDF.
Pat
Some might argue that there are no things that are simultaneously RDF
classes and properties, but that doesn't matter for the FOAF case. The
RSS1 vocabulary btw tried to define something that was both,
rss1:image I think; but this was a backwards-compatibility hack.
cheers,
Dan
------------------------------------------------------------
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
