W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2001


From: Vassilis Christophides <christop@ics.forth.gr>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 17:47:10 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <200110281547.RAA22659@athena.ics.forth.gr>
To: m.batsis@bsnet.gr, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Manos

>Yes, that was my point :-) 
>Since you wish to disjoint the two classes, using a higher level class
>for common properties (at least in this case) would make sense, it's the
>natural way one can model these.

Reading my pevious mail, you can easily understand that defining a
name attribute on class Human don't mean (with the RDF MS) that that
will be inherited by its subclasses Male and Female.

>With every respect to you and the rest of the people posting on this
>thread, I believe the whole discussion on the cycle subject is slightly
>missplaced. It would be far more interesting or even pragmatic to
>explore how cycles can serve us as a construct and document them for
>further development (meaning simply the semantics of the language),
>instead of thinking ways they can be harmfull when IMHO nobody is going
>to use them likewise.

Before deciding if cycles are useful or not I would like first to
understand their formal semantics. Additionally, as Wolfram says:

I nevertheless think, that now, with a draft of the MT available, it
is a good time to discuss what should be in the MT in the end, because
it is my feeling that it will be the MT that defines what the core of
RDF really is/will be, and the draft MT already allows to give
discussions the necessary precision

If anyone start to giving its own RDF/S semantics then we will
contribute to a Big Semantic Web mess.

Best regards

Received on Sunday, 28 October 2001 10:50:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC