- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:36:24 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > On 22 Mar 2013, at 10:27, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote: >> Section 4 defines LDPRs and non-LDPRs without specifying formally how >> they relate to RDF resources. Is the following true? >> >> ldp:Resource rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource . > > Everything is a resource, so this triple is trivially true. Everything is a resource, but not everything can implement HTTP methods? I would assume LDPR is an information resource, a subset of RDF resources. Real-world resources (e.g. persons) can be described by RDF, but can they be Linked Data? So I think ldp:Resource should be a more like foaf:Document than rdfs:Resource. > >> If not, what explicit relationship is there? >> Also, what is the RDFS/OWL definition of non-LDPRs? > > I don't understand the point of this question. Why talk about non-LDPRs at all? And why would an RDFS/OWL definition be useful? > Why wouldn't RDFS/OWL definition be useful? There is an ldp: namespace and seems like there is an ontology also, why shouldn't it include a definition of ldp:Resource alongside of ldp:Container, ldp:Page etc.? And if LDPRs and non-LDPRs are disjoint, why not make it explicit as well?
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 12:36:51 UTC