- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:09:52 -0500
- To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Tuesday, July 24, 2001, at 05:46 PM, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
>>> <daml:Class rdf:ID="Car"/>
>>> <daml:Class rdf:ID="Person"/>
>>> <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
>>> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Car"/>
>>> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
>>> </daml:Disjoint>
>> <#Car> rdf:type rdfs:Resource .
>> <#Person> rdf:type rdfs:Resource .
>>
>> I don't think the daml:collection is valid, since it appears on
>> a Class and not a Property.
> So actually daml:disjointUnionOf, daml:Disjoint, etc.
> are not valid RDF statements?
> And an ontology expressed in DAML can not by translated into
> a set of RDF triples without semantic loss?
Sorry, my colleague informs me that the correct triple
representation is:
<#Car> a daml:Class .
<#Person> a daml:Class .
[ a daml:Disjoint; daml:first <#Car>; daml:rest (<#Person>) ] .
So there is no reason to be alarmed,
--
"Aaron Swartz" | Blogspace
<mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://blogspace.com/about/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | weaving the two-way web
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 19:09:56 UTC