In a message dated 7/19/02 1:37:00 PM US Mountain Standard Time, danny666@virgilio.it writes: > Pardon me if this is extremely naive, but what to stop someone defining > subclasses of rdf:Property in their RDF Schema (or would that be > subPropertyOf?), called something like 'Relation' and 'Attribute'? I don't think it is naive at all. In fact, your suggestion is similar to decoy's for layering the feature on top of the existing specs. This is what I will do in the near term; however, the real issue is not "can this be layered on top" but "is it so fundamental, it should be part of the base." Also, if the knowledge representation is incorrect without it (due to what I call "implied subordination") then to be correct it should be part of rdfs. Best wishes, - Mike ---------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Daconta Director, Web & Technology Services www.mcbrad.comReceived on Monday, 22 July 2002 14:21:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:37 UTC