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 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:17 EDT