W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: RDF Issue rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance

From: Piotr Kaminski <piotr@ideanest.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:58:35 -0700
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <028601c24956$2efe5470$ada15018@transfinity>

A minor nitpick:

From: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> What makes something a class is just that it has some
> things in it (that is, in its extension)

A class can have an empty extension.  If I say:

pk:EmptyClass rdf:type rdfs:Class

And there are no statements like this anywhere in my model:

_:anything rdf:type pk:EmptyClass

Then pk:EmptyClass still qualifies as a class, right?

So I think it's more accurate (and perhaps simpler?) to say, just like in
the Model Theory:

A resource is a class if and only if it has rdf:type rdfs:Class (implicitly
or explicitly).
Every resource that is the object of an rdf:type statement is implicitly of
rdf:type rdfs:Class.
Any resource can be a class (implicitly, explicitly, or both).

Of course, to make a coherent picture with extensions of rdfs:Class, we need
to say that rdfs:subClassOf is transitive, etc.  But I think the rules above
make a solid foundation for newcomers.

        -- P.

  Piotr Kaminski <piotr@ideanest.com> http://www.ideanest.com
  It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 17:06:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:00 UTC