- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:02:22 -0400
- To: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- CC: David Navarro Arnao <dnavarro@isoco.com>, ben syverson <w3@likn.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Jon--
I didn't say this wasn't "valid" (although technically I don't think
"valid" is the right concept here, since we're talking about statements
rather than an argument), and I did say it was legal RDF (i.e.,
grammatically). However, I still think that an instance being both a
Book and a MotorVehicle appears "weird" ("strikingly odd"--Webster's New
World Dictionary). That this idea is "strikingly odd" was one of the
reasons for choosing it as an example in the first place!
--Frank
Jon Hanna wrote:
> Frank Manola wrote:
>>
>> For example, Section 5.2 has an example of declaring domains which
>> results in you having to conclude that an instance is both a Book and
>> a MotorVehicle. This may appear weird, but it's perfectly legal RDF.
>
> It's not that weird. "The collected works of Shakespeare is both a book
> and a motorised vehicle" is a perfectly valid sentence. It's nonsense,
> but that's not a matter for the rules of grammar to resolve. So it is
> too with RDF.
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 15:54:06 UTC