- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 03:31:51 -0500
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cs.umd.edu>
- CC: Sean Luke <seanl@cs.umd.edu>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Jeff Heflin wrote: > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > Sean Luke wrote: > > > > > > [context everyone: Jeff does SHOE, Dan is working informally on a SHOE -> > > > RDF converter and had asked some SHOE questions] > > > > > > On Fri, 12 May 2000, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > > > > Jeff Heflin wrote: > > > > > > > > > <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://schema.org/web#Web_Developer"> > > > > > <rdfs:subclassOf rdf:resource="#Silly_Person"> > > > > > </rdfs:Class> > > > > > > > > > > I do not see any restrictions in the RDFS spec to prevent such a > > > > > statement. > > > > > > > > Why should we prevent such a statement? Anyone can say anything > > > > about anything, no? > > > > > I was not trying to say that such a statement should be prevented, just > that without something else built on top of RDF/RDFS it will cause > problems. Recall that the original purpose of my example was to show > that SHOE Use-Ontology elements serve as more than just namespace > identifiers. In SHOE, a Use-Ontology tag states that the referenced > ontology provides additional information for interpreting the page. This > information includes machine-readable definitions of the terms used. As > such, it is similar to the "include" or "assert" constructs proposed by > Tim Berners-Lee in > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Toolbox.html#Assertion. Ah. Thanks for making the effort to explain it in terms I'm familiar with. Now I think I get it. More on the other stuff later, I hope... > > > [snip] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 04:32:06 UTC