W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Retraction: RDF vocabulary definitions

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:45:49 -0800
Message-ID: <000d01c29004$430ba220$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: <rinke@lri.jur.uva.nl>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Whoops!  I got a little careless there.
The RDF axiom
    rdf:type(?x,?y)  iff  ?y(?x)
translates to
    <?x> <rdf:type> <?y>  iff  <?x> <rdfs:subClassOf> <?y>  or  <?x> <rhm:individualOf> <?y>
Note: rhm:individualOf is my proposal for an additional property owl:individualOf.

The RDFS axiom
    ?y(?x) implies rdfs:Class(?y)
translates to
    <?x> <rdfs:subClassOf> <?y>  or  <?x> <rhm:individualOf> <?y>  implies  <?y> <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:Class>
So, I agree with you that "?y is a Class".  I think that 
    <?y> <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:Class>
is the "correct" RDFS way to say "?y is a Class".  I also think it's wrong; I think it should be
    <?y> <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:Resource>
because "Resource" alias "Thing" alias "existent" is the concept which subsumes all other concepts.

I hope Pat Hayes will step in and correct me if I am misinterpreting his rdf-mt document.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rinke Hoekstra 
  To: 'Richard H. McCullough' ; www-rdf-interest@w3.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:34 AM
  Subject: RE: RDF vocabulary definitions


  Richard,

   

  Although I am most certainly not an expert, I have some remarks below. 

   

  -----Original Message-----



  The rdf-mt document http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20021112/ 

  says in Appendix A, "RDF Axioms":

      rdf:type(?x,?y)  iff  ?y(?x)

  The triple translation is

  <?x> <rdf:type> <?y>  iff  <?x> <rdfs:subClassOf> <?y>

   

  I do not agree, the appendix under “RDFS Axioms” states (slightly rewritten to avoid confusion):

              ?y(?x) implies rdfs:Class(?y)

  Which means that ?y is a class if ?x is of the type ?y. This shows that ?y(?x) does not mean that ?x is a subclass of ?y at all. Why would we need a distinction between rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf if they were equivalent?

   

  Regards,

   

              Rinke Hoekstra



  ---
  Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13-11-2002




  ---
  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13-11-2002
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 14:45:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT