W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2006

Re: Individuals with more than one rdf:type

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:02:22 -0400
Message-ID: <4512B78E.5040509@acm.org>
To: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
CC: David Navarro Arnao <dnavarro@isoco.com>, ben syverson <w3@likn.org>, semantic-web@w3.org


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!


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:58 UTC