Re: Style question

On Mar 6, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Jonathan Brinley wrote:

> I think you may be misinterpreting rdf:type, and I think this
> misinterpretation comes from poor naming of the element on the part of
> the W3C.  I find it more helpful to think of rdf:type as signifying
> the the resource is of the type stated, rather than a type of thing
> (which one would denote with rdfs:subClassOf).

I agree that "type" is unfortunately named -- the direction of the 
relationship is unclear. "is a type of" or "is of type"? "instanceOf" 
is totally unambiguous, even if slightly longer...

- ben

Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 02:04:31 UTC