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

Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:46:41 -0400
To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OE685o1ybfecaQOeErK00002d79@hotmail.com>
Aaron, thank you for your answer.

> On Monday, July 23, 2001, at 11:07  AM, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
>
> > <daml:Class rdf:ID="Car"/>
> > <daml:Class rdf:ID="Person"/>
> > <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
> >    <daml:Class rdf:about="#Car"/>
> >    <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
> > </daml:Disjoint>
>
>
> <#Car> rdf:type rdfs:Resource .
> <#Person> rdf:type rdfs:Resource .
>
> I don't think the daml:collection is valid, since it appears on
> a Class and not a Property.

So actually daml:disjointUnionOf, daml:Disjoint, etc. 
are not valid RDF statements?
And an ontology expressed in DAML can not by translated into
a set of RDF triples without semantic loss?

Does it mean that DAML is hardly an RDF flavor after all?
Are there any thoughts of changing this? And if yes, than how?

And if it is RDF than what makes it to be RDF?

May be I am missing something again?

Thanks,

--Nikita.
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 18:51:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:50 GMT