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

Re: comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:39:16 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127132916.0ab7c538@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

At 05:03 27/11/2002 -0800, Richard H. McCullough wrote:

[...]
>##### I agree.  I just got lazy.  I didn't have a printout of the 
>document, and I was trying to manage by flipping between screens.  BTW, 
>the document has no section numbers or page numbers.

Right.  Will fix.

[...]
>##### OK, here's the proof that your definition of Class is contradictory.
>##### I don't remember exactly what you said in the rdf interest discussion.
>##### I think the basic idea was that "Class" is a class instead of a set 
>of class names.
>##### The problem with your definition comes out when you consider
>##### the PROPER subclass relations between Class and Resource.
>##### By the definition of Resource
>#####        every class except Resource is a proper subclass of Resource

I think this falls at the first hurdle.  I hearby define eg:Class, a class 
that is not a proper subclass of rdfs:Resource.

   eg:Class      rdf:type        rdfs:Class .
   eg:Class      rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .
   rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf eg:Class .

Are you assuming that two classes with exactly the same members must be the 
same class?  This is not true of rdfs:Class.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 08:39:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT