- From: Mike Moran <mmoran@netphysic.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:07:58 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [ ... ] > > Well let's put it this way. > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/common"> > <age>10</age> > </rdf:Description> > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/tom"> > <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://example.org/common"/> > <shoesize>7</shoesize> > </rdf:Description> > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example/jane"> > <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://example.org/common"/> > <shoesize>8</shoesize> > </rdf:Description> > > does *NOT* imply that Tom's age is 10, nor does it imply that Tom has an > age. No ifs, ands, or buts! > > Any RDF implemenation that behaves otherwise is broken! Ok. So, what does it imply then? By your explanation, (using shorthand) it is *not* the case that T isA C, or J isA C. In practical terms, how would I say that T isA C, or J isA C in RDF? I *want* to have shared, inherited, attributes. "tarod@softhome.net" says[1] I can get it by checking for inheritance explicitly using chained (prolog-like it seems) matching operators. However, you seem to say I shouldn't be doing this at all, using the above markup. I don't wish to troll, but it would seem like inheriting of attributes is a thing most people would expect to be able to do in RDF, somehow. [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Dec/0095.html -- Mike
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 13:08:35 UTC