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

RE: rdfs:resource

From: Pedro Assis in Oporto <passis@dee.isep.ipp.pt>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:00:22 +0100 (WEST)
To: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307241850470.20595-100000@douro.dee.isep.ipp.pt>

Hi Hanna,

Thanks for your reply.

The previous question is about the Notation3 and RDF vocabularies (only 
rdf: and rdfs:) assessment to describe an OO model for management 
information (CIM - Common Information Model). I've been working on this 
for sometime, but still with some doubts. In the present context I'm not 
concern with the lack of the RDF (bare bones) restrictions description 
power, which I can find in DAML+OIL and OWL (but yes, this is important 
when describing  real models based on CIM).

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Jon Hanna wrote:
> <cims:qualifierFlavor> <rdfs:subProperty> <cims:NamedElement> .
> Only follows if <cims:NamedElement> is a property.

The <cims:qualifierFlavor> is a property applied in the context of another 
property (<cims:qualifier>), i.e. is a property of a property. Both, as 
all CIM elements, are rooted at the NamedElement.

It is also clear that all CIM elements must be named, so the CIM
NamedElement is top level concept in the CIM metamodel description -- all 
CIM elements are derived from the NamedElement. It is this, in the end,  
what I'm trying to describe using RDF. 

All CIM elements are described as RDF resources, as all CIM elements are  
named the NamedElement should be described itself as a <rdfs:Resource> (a 

> which is a  <cims:Schema> is also a <cims:NamedElement> it does not 
> follow that <cims:Schema> itself is a <cims:NamedElement>.

Hmm, but it should. Ok, lets see if it is only a matter of language 
(semantics...). All members of <cims:Schema> are members of the 
<cims:NamedElement>, as all members of <cims:qualifier> should be of the 

If the <rdfs:Resource> is the superclass of everything, all other classes 
are subclasses of this one, namely the  <rdf:Property> and <rdfs:Class> 
classes. No?

The <C1> <rdfs:subClassOf> <C2> statement implies that <C2> is a 
<rdfs:Class>, eventually the <rdfs:Resource> class. Also, the <P1> 
<rdfs:subPropertyOf> <P2> statement implies that <P2> is a <rdf:Property>, 
which is a member of <rdfs:Class> that is subclass of <rdfs:Resource> 
> 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> .

But then it is not stated that the <cims:qualifierFlavor> is a property,
it has domain and range (this is important to my description). (it seems
like the previous thread about which came first, the resource or the



passis@dee.isep.ipp.pt | Tel. +351 22 8340500 Ext. 1712
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 16:00:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:46 UTC