Re: RDF Extensibility

2010/7/6 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>:
> 2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> 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.
>

I think that is your view and the view you have codified as the
authoritative definition that I can look up at that URI, but there is
nothing preventing me from making any assertion I like and working
with that in my own environment. If it's useful to me to say
foaf:Person a rdf:Property then I can just do that. However, I
shouldn't expect that assertion to interoperate with other people's
views of the world.

Ian

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 15:53:52 UTC