W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

Re: Chainsaw?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 16:53:28 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001101162950.00b4f5d0@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Tom Van Eetvelde <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>
Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 11:26 AM 10/23/00 +0200, Tom Van Eetvelde wrote:
>Bad idea! :-) I believe my proposal can model in a more natural way what 
>you want to do.

Tom,

I accept that my original idea was not great, but I have one problem with 
your proposal.  My concern applies to your proposal in the "definition of 
domain" thread, and also to the counter-example you offer to mine:

><rdfs:Class ID="Ford_Escort">
><rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="Car"/>
><s:bodyStyle> Hatchback </s:bodyStyle>
><s:engine_fueltype> Petrol </s:engine_fueltype>
></rdfs:Class>

I accept the idea of using a class as a kind of prototype, but have a 
problem with this particular representation.  Specifically, how statements 
about the class be distinguished from statements about instances of the 
class;  e.g.  I might wish to say something like:

    [FordEscord] --rdf:type---> [rdfs:Class]
    [          ] --definedBy--> [FordMotorCompany]
    [          ] --bodyStyle--> "HatchBack"
    (etc.)

Here, the intent of the properties "definedBy" and "bodyStyle" is very 
different.  One is a statement about the class itself, and the other is a 
prototype for instances of the class.

I'm still thinking about this stuff, so I'll pursue this further as I bet 
my ideas sorted.

#g
--

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 12:51:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:45 GMT