- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:45:35 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I did suggest some time ago that rdf:Description might be regarded as
equivalent to rdfs:Resource. I'm not sure that it really matters, though.
#g
--
At 11:40 AM 6/25/01 +0100, Dan Brickley wrote:
>If we take this reading of the syntax, then the presence of
>rdf:Description asserts an rdf:type relationship between the described
>resource and an rdfs:Class called rdf:Description.
>
>I've seen nothing in RDF elsewhere to support the claim that RDF defines
>such a class; M+S is pretty clear that the rdf:Description construct is
>pure encoding syntax.
>
>If we were to decide that such a (goofily named) class exists, would it
>be something like a subclass of rdfs:Resource? Your proposal seems to
>make the rules for our XML encoding syntax simpler at the cost of making
>the resulting structures more complex.
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 07:15:52 UTC