Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none>

  jejejejej, maybe you prefer that we lost flexibility with the new schema.
My question was, why the change if you don't add more flexibility neither
more expresivity, do you? But you are losing compatibility with previous
versions. Does it deserves so much work?

  The schema becomes more difficult and now there is a new class
(DomainOfDateProperty) I can have instancesof this new class, can I say
that this class is abstract? that everything in this class should be a
person or a document? (and disjoint, without using DAML) I will be able to
create a class of type DomainOfDateProperty and use it as domain of the
property and that's not what I want.

  I don't know but I think the previous version was much better.

  Thanks,
        Marc

Brian McBride writes:

> Hi Tarod,
> 
> At 19:38 19/11/2001 +0000, tarod@softhome.net wrote:
> 
> >It's easy...
> >
> >Classes: Person, Document, Date
> >Property: date(Domain:Person,Document, Range:Date)
> >
> >With the new Decision I must say that there is a Class (SomeClass) and
> >Document and Person are subclasses of SomeClass (what logical name do you
> >propose?) Otherwise I can't validate this document.
> 
> re name: DomainOfDateProperty.  So you can do it; this example does not 
> show a loss of expressive power.
> 
> 
> >Now I also have a property named color with domain(Person, Document, Pet
> >(new Class)) and Range: Color. I must add another virtual class
> >(name?????), sorry, that makes no sense for me.
> 
> In these examples, you do have to do more work, but you can achieve the 
> effect you want, right?
> 
> When I asked for an example of where you thought you had lost expressive 
> power, I was looking for something you could previously do, that you can't 
> do now.
> 
> 
> >By the way, could you give me an example of the benefits of the new
> >decision?
> 
> 
> We've been through that already, haven't we.  I haven't been able to 
> persuade you.  I'm not really expecting to be able to do so.  The reason 
> for my original question was that if you had a compelling example of loss 
> of important functionality, you might persuade me.
> 
> Brian
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 13:24:38 UTC