- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:33:29 +0100
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>, David Navarro Arnao <dnavarro@isoco.com>, ben syverson <w3@likn.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Frank Manola wrote:
>
> 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!
Maybe worth also pointing out that OWL gives us vocabulary for talking
about such situations. We could use OWL to express that the classes Book
and MotorVehicle are 'mutually disjoint', making some such 'weirdnesses'
visibly contradictory. Many other weirdnesses I think will come about
from individuals being in multiple independently defined classes; for
example, we could imagine Annotea, Dublin Core, Creative Commons, FOAF
and RSS1 all having related (but potentially a bit different) notions of
Document/Work/Item/etc, such that some Web page falls into all those
classes, even while the relationships amongst those classes haven't yet
been documented explicitly.
Dan
Received on Friday, 22 September 2006 11:29:44 UTC