> <_:1> <foaf:research_interest> <_:2> > <_:2> <rdf:type> <foaf:Research_interest> Oh, heh: I get it now. This is a bit concerning, in that people like to name their ranges after the property name. :person and :Person, :name and :Name. We had quite a discussion about this on SWAG a while ago, when we were disucssing using nouns for properties. It'd be cool to define a sub property of range that is unambiguous:- :unamRange a daml:UnambiguousProperty; rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range . then you could do stuff like:- _:a [ :unamRange foaf:Research_interest ] _:b . but then you'd end up with throwaway classes. I conclude that it doesn't actually matter to have classes named after properties or vice versa, as long as everything is properly stated. For example, there is a property in EARL ("testSubject") that is named after its *domain* rather than its range. No one seems to have had a problem with that as of yet :-) -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 12:20:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:33 UTC