W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Style question

From: ben syverson <w3@likn.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 19:48:49 -0600
Message-Id: <6f9108694ceb0ba31df401a066d31471@likn.org>
To: semantic-web@w3.org


On Mar 6, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Geoff Chappell wrote:

> In that case, maybe you just want to say something like this:
[snip]

Ah ha, yes -- that makes sense.

> I'd personally stay away from bags - they don't really carry much 
> meaning.
> For example, you can't infer that a relation between a resource and a 
> bag
> holds between the resource and the members of the bag.

Oh -- thanks! Then a bag won't do at all.

> It often makes sense to have class and instance data separate. If you 
> do,
> it's probably a good idea to either make the schema retrievable at its 
> uri
> or point to it via owl:imports or rdfs:seeAlso in the instance data.

You mean simply put the schema at the URI that defines the namespace? 
That is, given:
xmlns:likn="http://likn.org/owl#"
put the ontology at http://likn.org/owl?

> It says that the resource is an instance of theater. It does not say 
> that it
> is a subclass of theater (which I think is what you mean by "is a type 
> of
> theater") - for that you'd say:
> 	<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://likn.org/#theater" />

That makes everything SO much easier.

Thanks again Geoff!

- ben
Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 01:53:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:45 UTC