- From: Erik Hetzner <egh@e6h.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:57:48 -0700
- To: "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
(Sorry for the spam; this was sent from the wrong email address, so I am re-sending.) At Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:07:56 -0700, Erik Hetzner wrote: > > At Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:27:17 -0400, > Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > > Let me address Ross' question before attempting to argue that restraint > > to a single rdf:type is good practice. > > > > Here is the example in question: > > > > http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/muscomp/sy.rdf > > Hi, > > Once you bring OWL into the picture, every resource has rdf:type > owl:Thing in addition to any defined rdf:type. Any rdfs:Class (C) that > is rdfs:subClassOf another class (C') implies that every instance of > type C is also of type C'. I would argue that a resource with multiple > (implied) rdf:type(s) is the rule, not the exception. > > best, Erik Hetzner
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 12:03:41 UTC