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

Re: abstract class

From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:58:17 +0500
Message-ID: <001701c2c35c$d4307bf0$325d08a1@leo>
To: <marc@jfcarrion.com>, "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Collegues,
Suppose your discussion is very close to problem discussed in the SUO
mailing list - http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg01889.html

Leonid
===================================
Leonid Ototsky  -  leo@mmk.ru,  leo@mgn.ru
http://ototsky.mgn.ru
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center
Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works - http://www.mmk.ru
Russia
=========================================

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Carrion" <marc_carrion@yahoo.es>
To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:25 AM
Subject: RE: abstract class


>
>
> --- Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie> wrote:
> >
> > >   thing in all objects that can have color, all
> > them
> > > will have the property color, then the domain of
> > the
> > > property color is going to be ObjectsWithColor,
> > but we
> > > don't want objects that are type of
> > ObjectsWithColor
> > > ant not type of anything else.
> >
> > Again I think you are confusing "Class" in OO with
> > "Class" in RDF.
>   I'm sorry, I'm not confusing the both models, I'm
> saying we would like to have one funcionality in
> RDF-Schema, that we don't have now
>
> > <x> <rdf:type> <ObjectsWithColor> doesn't mean that
> > <x> is not of any type
> > other than <ObjectsWithColor>. It is perfectly okay
> > to have that statement
> > on its own.
>   I know, I just want to say that I don't want this
> statement in my model.
>
> > Similarly in you're earlier example <#foo>
> > <rdf:type> <A> entails the
> > statement <#foo> <rdf:type> <C>.
> >
> > Indeed it for any resource #bar one can accurately,
> > if needlessly compose
> > the RDF/XML:
> >
> > <rdfs:Resource id="#bar"/>, and that's a superclass
> > even of your <C> class.
> >
> > This isn't a programming language. It is a language
> > for describing
> > resources.
>   I know, you can use UML to describe models too, it's
> not a programming language and you can use abstract
> ideas.
>
> > Compare with English. When I say "I am a human
> > being", that statement isn't
> > untrue because I didn't use the more accurate "I am
> > a man" or "I am an
> > Irishman" or "I am a married Irish Software
> > Developer between the ages of 25
> > to 35 in full-time employment who is registered to
> > vote and doesn't drive a
> > car".
>   I know it's not incorrect, but it's useless, I don't
> want to allow people to say useless information. When
> you say you are a human being you are also saying you
> are a man or a woman, that's the info I would like to
> have. If one day we add clones to the definition of
> human beings, it's going to be ok to think that when
> you say you are a human being you mean you are a man
> or a woman or a clone.
>
> > Classes in RDF are far more comparable to nouns in
> > English than to classes
> > in OO.
> >
>   I don't totally agree. If you use RDF correctly you
> can represent the same that in UML (I think I saw the
> UML Vocabulary in RDF). Everything depends on the use
> you want for your RDF data.
>
>   Regards,
>           Marc
>
> =====
> ......\|||/................................................
>       (. .)
> -oOOo---0---oOOo-------
> |marc_carrion@yahoo.es|
> |   ooO  Ooo          |
> ----( )--( )-----------
>      ()  ()
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 00:54:54 GMT

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