W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Container in RDF Schema

From: François <francoisleygues@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:46:45 -0400
Message-Id: <200108101348.JAA15271@tux.w3.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[Freed from spam trap.  This message replies to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Aug/0020.html
-rrs]

 Message-ID: <20010806194436.45362.qmail@web11808.mail.yahoo.com>
 Old-Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
 From: "François" Leygues <francoisleygues@yahoo.com>
 To: "Andrei S. Lopatenko" <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
 Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
 In-Reply-To: <009201c11e90$85890d40$a6498280@tuwien.ac.at>

--- "Andrei S. Lopatenko" <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
wrote:
> Thank you, François
> I've read paper McBride, Beckett,
> but did not know about decisions of 29th June RDF WG
> meeting.
> So
> "On 29th June 2001, the WG decided that containers
> will match the typed node
> production in the grammar (M&S Section 6, production
> 6.13) and that the
> container specific productions (productions 6.25 to
> 6.31) and any references
> to them be removed from the grammar. rdf:li elements
> will be translated to
> rdf:_nnn elements when they are found matching
> either a propertyElt
> (production 6.12) or a a typedNode (production
> 6.13). The decision includes
> a set of test cases."
> I would like to check
> if rdf:_nnn elements are instances of ...  what?

They are instances of the
rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty. 

rdf:li is simply a notation interpreted by the parser,
and immediatly transformed into rdf:_nnn.


> It is not clear from
>
http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/rdf/issues/containersyntax/current.htm,
>
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity
> I suppose they are instances of rdf:li? (where
> rdf=http://www.w3.rg/.../rdf-syntax-ns#)
> So if I would like to define class project with a
> list of
> project-participator
> is it right way (in pure RDF Schema without any
> DAML)? (Yes, I agree that
> your suggestion is correct but is following right
> from new point of view? )
> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Project">
>   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Resource"/>
> </rdfs:Class>

> <rdf:Property rdf:ID="project-participators">
>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="Project">
>     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="project-participator">
>     <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="rdf:Bag"/>
> </rdf:Property>

ohoh you make a Property a subclass of Bag !
This doesnt make sense in my mind. 


> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="project-participator">
>   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="rdf:li"/>
> </rdfs:Class>

rdf:li is NOT a resource. You cannot subclass it.

> <rdf:Property rdf:ID="proj_part_role">
>     <rdfs:domain
> rdf:resource="project-participator">
> </rdf:Property>
> <rdf:Property rdf:ID="proj_part_person">
>     <rdfs:domain
> rdf:resource="project-participator">
> </rdf:Property>
> 
What are the range of these properties?

Well, I think that there are problems with that. 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 09:48:25 GMT

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