- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 16:53:28 +0000
- 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 UTC