- 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