- From: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:53:18 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
2010/7/6 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>: > 2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>: >>> >>> It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. The >>> same as the following is a false statement: >>> >>> foaf:Person a rdf:Property . >> >> Why do you think so? >> I believe it is valid RDF and even valid under RDFS semantic extension. >> Maybe OWL says something about disjointness of RDF properties and classes >> URI can be many things. > > It just so happens as a fact in the world, that the thing called > foaf:Person isn't a property. It's a class. > I think that is your view and the view you have codified as the authoritative definition that I can look up at that URI, but there is nothing preventing me from making any assertion I like and working with that in my own environment. If it's useful to me to say foaf:Person a rdf:Property then I can just do that. However, I shouldn't expect that assertion to interoperate with other people's views of the world. Ian
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 15:53:52 UTC