- From: Murray Spork <m.spork@qut.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:52:13 +1000
- To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Richard H. McCullough wrote: > 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. This may be true, but it doesn't refute the fact that you may want to make statements about a class without actually defining any of its members. You could, for example, define a class's default properties, the relationships it has to other classes etc. - without actually wanting to, or needing to, make statements about members of that class. > Ios there a mechanism for guaranteeing that members are found? No > I suppose that's been taken into account. > If so, sounds like a reasonable, iterative, engineering solution. Yes - I think that is a good way of putting it. In some sense all RDF/S documents are work-in-progress. An rdfs:Class with no explicitly defined instances is still valid RDF - whether or not such a class is useful, I'll leave as a question to others with more experience. > I am an engineer, so I appreciate such things. > Thanks for bringing this to my attention. No worries. -- 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 Friday, 22 November 2002 00:53:30 UTC