- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:30:03 -0500
- To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
On Thursday, July 5, 2001, at 03:43 PM, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
> Annotated DAML+OIL (March 2001) Ontology Markup
> http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru.html
>
> Contains the following example markup:
>
> <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Car"/>
> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/>
> </daml:Disjoint>
>
> Do you mean that this can be equivalently written like this:
>
> <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
> <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Car"/>
> <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Person"/>
> <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Plant"/>
> </daml:Disjoint>
No, You'd need to remove the # signs. Also note that, in
following the rules of rdf:ID, duplicate uses of the same ID are
not allowed.
> Or do you think that the above mentioned markup should be instead:
>
> <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
> <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Car"/>
> <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/>
> <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Plant"/>
> </daml:Disjoint>
No, this is completely different.
--
"Aaron Swartz" | The Semantic Web
<mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | i'm working to make it happen
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2001 16:30:12 UTC