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?
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 ;)
