- From: ben syverson <w3@likn.org>
- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:04:29 -0600
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On Mar 6, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Jonathan Brinley wrote: [snip] > 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). [snip] 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