- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:14:27 +0100
- To: mcaklein@cs.vu.nl
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Michel, In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0045.html you raised an issue which was captured in http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property as [[[ Can an instance of the Property class have a subClassOf property? What does this mean? ]]] As recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0406.html the RDFCore WG has resolved: [[ o an instance of the Property class may have an rdfs:subClassOf property o the meaning of such a property is defined by the model theory o this issue be closed ]] The wording of the formal resolution is a bit bare, so let me add a few words of explanation. What this means is that a resource can be both a class and a property. If it is a Class, the resource has a class extension which is the set of members of the class. If it is a property, it has a property extension which is the set of pairs related by the property. If it is both a class and a property, then it has both a class extension and a property extension. The distinction between a class and its extension, and a property and its extension is a mathematical trick introduced to avoid Russel's paradox when we allows classes to be members of themselves. As you see, I hope, it also works nicely to enable a resource to be both a property and a class. Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue. Brian McBride RDFCore co-chair
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 11:15:59 UTC