W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2000

Re: Subclass of Thing/Resource

From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:56:12 +0000 (GMT)
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
cc: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GHP.4.21.0003032133480.14309-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> I tim wrote:
> >> 0. We could define (if starting from zero) define dc:creator to have
> range
> >> dc:person where
> >> a person is the domain of properties dc:mailbox and sc:homepage and
> >> dc:commonname.
> >> That is the best solution.
> Pierre-Antoine replied:
> >do it, and people will write things like
> >
> ><play:Person rdf:about="mailto:John@somewhere.org"/>
> ><play:Person rdf:about="http://www.somewhere.org/~Paul/">
> ><play:Person rdf:about="employee://somewhere.org/12345"/>
> >
> >et voila ! The above dc:creator statements are valid.
> They are valid in as much as we do not have any mechanism in RDF
> for causing a validity error. We can declare  that "play:mailbox" has a
> domain of Person and a range of Mailbox, but we can't  yet say that People
> and Mailboxes are mutually distinct.

I would love to see a utility vocab with things like 'mutually disjoint
classes' at some point to make some of this stuff tighter. I
don't think all such useful things belong in the core, but there's IMHO
a good case for seeing what people need/use in practice and then at some
point building a Note or somesuch enumerating a collection of such

The mention of mutually disjoint reminds me...

Another one for the issues list:

are the Literals and the Resources as per the M&S spec mutually
disjoint? I'm not sure the answer's 100% clear from the spec though the
strong impression is that this is the case.


(digging himself out from a weeks unread rdf mail)
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 16:57:45 UTC

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