W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: abstract class

From: Marc Carrion <marc_carrion@yahoo.es>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 02:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20030206100051.72168.qmail@web11908.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org


--- Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> At 03:12 24/01/2003 -0800, Marc Carrion wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >   That would be illegal if you don't have any
> other
> >information. But if you have had:
> >     x rdf:type c .
> >     c rdf:type rdfs:Abstract .
> >     x rdf:type a .
> >     a rdf:subClassOf c .
> >   That would be correct.
> 
> Built into RDF is the assumption that any subgraph
> of an RDF graph is a 
> legal RDF graph.  That's not likely to change
> anytime soon.
> 
   When using reification 
     _:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
     _:xxx rdf:subject <ex:a> .
     _:xxx rdf:predicate <ex:b> .
     _:xxx rdf:object <ex:c> .
   would be true, but if we only have 
     _:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
     _:xxx rdf:subject <ex:a> .
     _:xxx rdf:predicate <ex:b> .
   that would not be a 'correct' model, I mean it's
going to have a wrong Resource of type Statement.

   The same when using Collections
     _:c1 rdf:type rdf:List .
     _:c1 rdf:rest _:c2
   which is a List without head, it's a correct Model
but an incorrect List

   I was thinking that Abstract Classes could be
defined in the same way.

   Regards,
           Marc

=====
......\|||/................................................
      (. .)
-oOOo---0---oOOo-------
|marc_carrion@yahoo.es|
|   ooO  Ooo          |
----( )--( )-----------
     ()  ()

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 05:00:53 GMT

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