- From: Murray Spork <m.spork@qut.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:33:14 +1000
- To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Richard H. McCullough wrote: > This is where I draw the line in the sand. > I am definitely saying that the concept of RDF Class is wrong. > I'll try to answer each of your questions. If I haven't answered some > to your satisfaction, speak up. > > 1. a number is a class. > "two" is the abstraction of "two apples", "two oranges", "two people", etc. > > 2. an empty class is nonexistent. > if the class has no members, it is a "floating abstraction", a > "contradiction" > it does not exist > it has no properties > how many ways can I say it? I think one of the main motivations with description logics is that you can partially describe things (configuration management systems make great use of this). Having an RDF graph that asserts the existence of some class - but that does not assert the existence of any members of that class - does not mean that no members exist. It just means we don't know about those members yet. Cheers -- Murray Spork Centre for Information Technology Innovation (CITI) The Redcone Project Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Phone: +61-7-3864-9488 Email: m.spork@qut.edu.au Web: http://redcone.gbst.com/
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 20:33:11 UTC