- From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:59:04 +0200
- To: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- CC: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Natasha Noy wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with having classes in the hierarchy be instances
> of some metaclasses (in fact, i would argue very strongly that there are
> many cases where you would want just that). However, in your particular
> example, you want to represent a specific lion in the San Diego Zoo as a
> class, and that's a problem. A class of what? What are instances of this
> class? etc.
I think I see what you mean. If we are looking at a lion, we know that
we can't be any more specific. Therefore classes should not be used for
things that can be pointed to. (But inversely, things that do not exist
may still be considered to be things...)
Incidently, how do you best translate rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf into
natural language without loosing the distinction between the two terms?
("is a" seems to be used for both...)
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 07:58:56 UTC