- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:41:15 +0200
- To: "Vassilis Christophides" <christop@ics.forth.gr>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi Vassili, > -----Original Message----- > From: Vassilis Christophides [mailto:christop@ics.forth.gr] > > Manos Batsis wrote: > >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. Never argued with that and although I haven't seriously looked at rdf-mt, that's what rdfs:domain is about, at least from what I understand[1]: "The RDF Schema type system is similar to the type systems of object-oriented programming languages such as Java. However, RDF differs from many such systems in that instead of defining a class in terms of the properties its instances may have, an RDF schema will define properties in terms of the classes of resource to which they apply. This is the role of the rdfs:domain and rdfs:range constraints described in Section 3." > If anyone start to giving its own RDF/S semantics then we will > contribute to a Big Semantic Web mess. I never attempted to do so. Please turn the pedantic mode off ;-) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#s2.1 With my kindest regards, Manos
Received on Monday, 29 October 2001 02:39:56 UTC