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


From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:41:15 +0200
Message-ID: <A35E2040C17F0C48B941B8F4D0DF122908E389@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
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
"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,

Received on Monday, 29 October 2001 02:39:56 UTC

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