- From: Heiko Gottschling <gottschl@in.tum.de>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:26:39 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Monday 08 December 2003 14:06, jon@hackcraft.net wrote: > I think that's okay, but why not have: > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="Fruit"> > <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> > <owl:Class rdf:resource="#Apple" /> > <owl:Class rdf:resource="#Banana" /> > </owl:unionOf> > </owl:Class> That brings me to another question - given the above definition of fruit, would the following be valid (or even implied?): <owl:Class rdf:ID="Apple"> <rdf:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Fruit" /> </owl:Class> IAW, what is the relation between 'unionOf' and 'subClassOf'? Would it be ok to say that a class represents the union of its subclasses? Heiko
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 08:27:07 UTC