W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2003

RE: rdfs:resource

From: Pedro Assis in Oporto <passis@dee.isep.ipp.pt>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:46:19 +0100 (WEST)
To: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308011938210.31220-200000@douro.dee.isep.ipp.pt>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Jon Hanna wrote:

> 
> > > <cims:qualifierFlavor> <rdfs:subProperty> <cims:NamedElement> .
> > > Entails that both <cims:qualifierFlavor> and <cims:NamedElement> are
> > > properties, and as such it is possible to say <A>
> > <cims:NamedElement> <B>.
> >
> > Yes, and that is a problem. In my view this is wrong as the NamedElement
> > is "conceptual" or restriction (if you prefer), i.e. it states that all
> > CIM elements must be named.
> 
> I don't think it's a problem. It's still possible to say that
> <cims:qualifierFlavor> <rdf:type> <cims:NamedElement>.
> And similarly for its range and domain. Further subPropertys of
> qualifierFlavor will have ranges and domains that are the same or compatible
> with qualifierFlavor, so they would inherit the restriction that those must
> be NamedElements.
> 
> So it can still be entirely rooted in NamedElement if that's what you
> desire.
> 

Hi,

Please find enclosed a proposal (CimMetaSchema2Rdf.rdf, text file) for the
RDF description of the DMTF CIM (Common Information Model) [1]. This work
follows the CIM specification v2.2 described in [2]. Comments are welcome.

[1] http://www.dmtf.org/standards/standard_cim.php
[2] http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/CIM/DSP0004.pdf

-- 
Pedro

passis@dee.isep.ipp.pt | Tel. +351 22 8340500 Ext. 1712


Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 14:46:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:01 GMT