Re: RDF vocabulary definitions

That seems backwards.
Shouldn't you assert the existence of members, even if you can't specify all their properties?
The existence of the class logically depends on the existence of its members.
Is there a mechanism for guaranteeing that members are found?

I suppose that's been taken into account.  
If so, sounds like a reasonable, iterative, engineering solution.

I am an engineer, so I appreciate such things.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Murray Spork 
  To: Richard H. McCullough ; www-rdf-interest@w3.org 
  Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 5:33 PM
  Subject: Re: RDF vocabulary definitions


  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/