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

RE: rdfs:resource

From: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:18:16 +0100
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLCBLIMDOPKMOPHLHCECLFGAA.jon@spin.ie>

> Assuming,
>
> cims:NamedElement rdf:type rdfs:Resource
> cims:qualifierFlavor rdf:type rdf:Property
> cims:Schema rdf:type rdfs:Class
>
> So, is the following correct?
>
> cims:qualifierFlavor rdfs:subProperty cims;NamedElement
> cims:Schema rdfs:subClassOf cims;NamedElement
>
> The main issue is that in my world (cims:) everything is a Named Element
> so the RDF description of it must be rooted at the NamedElement resource
> regardless of its type.

<cims:qualifierFlavor> <rdfs:subProperty> <cims:NamedElement> .
Only follows if <cims:NamedElement> is a property.

<cims:Schema> <rdfs:subClassOf> <cims:NamedElement> .
Only follows if <cims:NamedElement> is a class (it would appear from what
you have said that it is). While this would mean that anything which is a
<cims:Schema> is also a <cims:NamedElement> it does not follow that
<cims:Schema> itself is a <cims:NamedElement>.

I think what you want to indicate how your ontology works is:

<cims:qualifierFlavor> <rdf:type> <cims:NamedElement> .
<cims:Schema> <rdf:type> <cims:NamedElement> .
<cims:Schema> <rdfs:subClassOf> <cims:NamedElement> .

It may be appropriate for you to identify <cims:NamedElement> as being one
and the same as <rdfs:Resource>, which would hence entail the above
statements that used <rdf:type>, or it may not.
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 07:15:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:00 GMT