- From: Marc Carrion <marc_carrion@yahoo.es>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 02:00:51 -0800 (PST)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
--- Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> At 03:12 24/01/2003 -0800, Marc Carrion wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > That would be illegal if you don't have any
> other
> >information. But if you have had:
> > x rdf:type c .
> > c rdf:type rdfs:Abstract .
> > x rdf:type a .
> > a rdf:subClassOf c .
> > That would be correct.
>
> Built into RDF is the assumption that any subgraph
> of an RDF graph is a
> legal RDF graph. That's not likely to change
> anytime soon.
>
When using reification
_:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
_:xxx rdf:subject <ex:a> .
_:xxx rdf:predicate <ex:b> .
_:xxx rdf:object <ex:c> .
would be true, but if we only have
_:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
_:xxx rdf:subject <ex:a> .
_:xxx rdf:predicate <ex:b> .
that would not be a 'correct' model, I mean it's
going to have a wrong Resource of type Statement.
The same when using Collections
_:c1 rdf:type rdf:List .
_:c1 rdf:rest _:c2
which is a List without head, it's a correct Model
but an incorrect List
I was thinking that Abstract Classes could be
defined in the same way.
Regards,
Marc
=====
......\|||/................................................
(. .)
-oOOo---0---oOOo-------
|marc_carrion@yahoo.es|
| ooO Ooo |
----( )--( )-----------
() ()
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 05:00:53 UTC