W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

FAQ: stratified class hierarchies vs. RDFS

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 20 Jun 2002 13:35:53 -0500
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
Message-Id: <1024598155.26130.1506.camel@dirk>

The fact that rdfs:Class is an rdfs:Class
looks odd to lots of people:

  - folks familiar with ZF set theory
  freak out, because it looks like a
  set is an element of itself.
	(the RDF model theory treats
	this artfully, I think.)

  - folks that are used to stratified
  class metamodels find it odd too.

It came up again today.

Please add something about this to the RDF FAQ
  http://www.w3.org/RDF/FAQ
or the RDF primer or something.

I think the reason that RDFS is this way
is the "anybody can say anything about anything"
principle... a stratified approach disallows
cycles, which are a naturally occuring phenomenon
in the web.

Hmm... I don't think I put that very well.

Tim, maybe you could try your hand at explaining
how stratified systems are not web-like? Guha?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 14:35:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT