- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:38:04 -0400
- To: Vishal Sinha <vishal.sinha777@yahoo.com>
- Cc: SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>, Mark Wallace <mwallace@modusoperandi.com>
What Mark says is correct. It's "rdf:type" rather than "rdfs:type", because it's part of the RDF vocabulary, rather than the RDF Schema vocabulary. --Frank On Oct 31, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Mark Wallace wrote: > My understanding is that rdf:type is part of the basic RDF standard, not RDFS. This statement is from the RDF Primer: > > "This idea of things being classified into different kinds or categories is similar to the programming language concept of objects having different types or classes. RDF supports this concept by providing a predefined property, rdf:type. When an RDF resource is described with an rdf:type property, the value of that property is considered to be a resource that represents a category or class of things, and the subject of that property is considered to be an instance of that category or class." [1] > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/ > > > -- > Mark Wallace > Melbourne, FL, USA > > ________________________________________ > From: Vishal Sinha [vishal.sinha777@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:03 PM > To: semantic-web@w3.org > Subject: rdf:type > > whenever we use rdf:type in triple, we are using RDF Schema construct, right? > > > so, if I have only one triple - > > bb:Marvin rdf:type ss:Student . > > its RDF Schema, right? > >
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 14:38:46 UTC