W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Treating a class as both an individual and a class?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:27:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030310.102734.09189906.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: nogievet@cogx.com
Cc: costello@mitre.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org

From: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
Subject: Re: Treating a class as both an individual and a class?
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:24:08 -0800

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > No, this is not good modelling.  If you want to say that Davenport has a
> > River, you should say so, via
> > 
> >      <City rdf:ID="Davenport">
> >          <rdfs:subClassOf>
> >     <owl:Restriction>
> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="hasFeature" />
> > <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://geodesy.org#River"/>
> >     </owl:Restriction>
> >          </rdfs:subClassOf>
> >          ....
> >      </City>
> > 
> 
> Hmmm.... 
> Peter, in  your example an individual city is a class?

No, Davenport is an instance of the class City.

> Should not it be something like:

> <CityOnARiver rdf:ID="Davenport">
>          ....
> </CityOnARiver>
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="CityOnARiver">
>   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#River">
>   <rdfs:subClassOf>
>     <owl:Restriction>
>       <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="hasFeature" />
>       <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://geodesy.org#River"/>
>     </owl:Restriction>
>   </rdfs:subClassOf>
> </owl:Class>

This makes a city on a river be a river, which is probably not what is wanted.

> --Nikita

peter
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 10:27:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:43 GMT