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

Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:09:52 -0500
Message-Id: <200107242313.f6ONDLq02218@theinfo.org>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
On Tuesday, July 24, 2001, at 05:46  PM, 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?

Sorry, my colleague informs me that the correct triple 
representation is:

<#Car> a daml:Class .
<#Person> a daml:Class .
[ a daml:Disjoint; daml:first <#Car>; daml:rest (<#Person>) ] .

So there is no reason to be alarmed,
--
       "Aaron Swartz"      |           Blogspace
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://blogspace.com/about/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |     weaving the two-way web
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 19:09:56 GMT

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