- From: Guha <guha@epinions-inc.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 10:16:44 -0800
- To: Stefan Haustein <stefan.haustein@trantor.de>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Bill dehOra <Wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
The semantics of Class are different in RDFS and OO. In your proposal, we are unlikely to have a single Class "Person". We will probably have a thousand or more different versions of "Person", each with its own set of properties. I think this will be an impediment ... guha Stefan Haustein wrote: > Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > > > No, there *is* something fundamentally different between most distributed OO > > systems and frame systems and RDF. In a frma system, fundamentally, the > > designer of an object class defines the set of properties an object may > > "have". This doesn't scale, as it doesn't allow anyone to say anything > > about anything: you can only say what the class designer said you could say, > > and in some syetms you can only say it if you have write access to the > > object. The RDF model in which properties are essentailly first class > > objects independent of classes (though constrains can later be expressed) is > > fundamentally more weblike, and therefore scalable. > > I claim that you still could say anything about anything if > properties were local to classes in RDF: An instance > can have several different types in RDF. You would just need > to design a custom class containing the properties you wish, > and add the new class to the types of the instance you > describe. ...
Received on Saturday, 4 March 2000 13:17:33 UTC