W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: RDF Extensibility

From: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:53:18 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinciyc3G1VVAkRl4GB2WoQmXLdVHw5iRlhaHNnX@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
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.

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 15:53:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:21 UTC