Re: definitionOf

1. re meaning of "rdf:type"
The document  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/
was somewhat ambiguous, using terms like "resource", "instance", "member" without defining them.
However, it did say explicitly in the section "rdf:type":
    The resource known as rdfs:Class is itself a resource of rdf:type rdfs:Class.
or in my alternate KR syntax:
    rdfs:Class has rdf:type = rdfs:Class

The document http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20021112/ 
says in Appendix A, "RDF Axioms":
    rdf:type(?x,?y)  iff  ?y(?x)
or in my alternate KR syntax
    $x has rdf:type = $y  iff  $x isa* $y
$x was not restricted to Individuals.
Note: my "isa" is the "union" of "isu" and "iss", i.e., it is valid for $x which is either an individual or a species.

2. expressing "definitionOf" in triples
Deferred.
Remarks:
a. I identified "definitionOf" as a necessary property to describe reality -- the human method of concept-formation.
b. "definitionOf" is a ternary property.
c. Is the purpose of OWL to describe reality, or to see what can be done with binary properties?
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Hanna 
  To: RDF-Interest 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 4:15 AM
  Subject: RE: definitionOf



  > 2. individualOf vs. type
  >  a. subject isu object
  >      iff subject has individualOf = object
  >      subject must be an individual
  >  b. subject has type = object
  >      subject can be any individual or any subClass of object

  Are you sure that is the correct definition of rdf:type? My understanding
  was that rdf:type was as you have expressed your proposed owl:individualOf
  here.

  > 3. definitionOf expressed in triples
  > I have not made any specific proposal for representing this "quad" in >
  triples.

  Since you are proposing it be used with a triple-based language, it might be
  an idea to do so.