Re: abstract class from wsng@gmx.net on 2003-01-24 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from January 2003)

From: <wsng@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:31:57 +0100
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <marc@jfcarrion.com>
Message-ID: <000801c2c3bd$bb5e7440$bb984b82@ravel>

Marc Carrion wrote:

>   You instantiate in RDF, when you create a resource
> and you say it's of type X, you have an instance of
> class X. At least that's our interpretation.

That's a misunderstanding. A more appropriate analogy
would be to view rdf:type as an interface declaration.

There is no concept of a 'real' class of a resource 
in RDF. Besides, you always can add more rdf:type
predicates to a resource afterwards, which may as well
be subtypes of already 'declared' types. This is
completely different from an OO instantiation concept.

- Wolf

Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 10:32:00 UTC