- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:12:22 +0000
- To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>
At 11:17 21/11/2002 -0800, Richard H. McCullough wrote: >Brian >My comments are in the attached file, mcbride.txt Richard, The first line of your suggested replacement takes the original: [[Resources may be divided into groups called classes]] and replaces it with [[Resources may be divided into hierarchical groups called classes.]] You then note that its not really a hierarchy, its a lattice. Which is also wrong by the way. There can be loops. I'm afraid that suggesting replacement text which is just wrong, and you know to be wrong, isn't all that helpful. Nor are the references to terms such as metaclasses, contexts, class names etc which are simply not part of RDFS . Please bear in mind that we are trying to describe RDFS here, not something else you may have in mind. You have picked up an point that might be better expressed, for which thanks: [[The group of resources that are RDF Schema classes is itself a class called rdfs:Class.]] might better be [[RDF schema classes are members of the class rdfs:Class.]] You have stated that: [[ll classes are subclasses of themselves. <<this is true, but RDF Schema should use proper subsets instead of subsets. Using subsets logically permits such absurdities as: the set of all men is identical to the set of all animals.>>]] I'm intrigued by that one. We have a major flaw if that is true. Care to explain? Brian
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 16:11:00 UTC