Yes, I know that if I say <ns:B rdf:ID="foo"/> that implies <ns:C rdf:ID="foo"/> The thing is we would like to say that we cannot have <ns:C rdf:ID="foo"/> without having <ns:A rdf:ID="foo"/> or <ns:B rdf:ID="foo"/> or any other subclass of C. so we couldn't have a resource that is only of type C. In other words, we would like to define C as abstract. Regards, Marc --- Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie> wrote: > > > I meant, I can have > > <ns:C rdf:ID="foo"/> > > If you have <ns:B rdf:ID="foo"/> then you are > implying <ns:C rdf:ID="foo"/> > > It may not be particularly useful to you (right now) > to say that, but it's > obviously true. > ===== ......\|||/................................................ (. .) -oOOo---0---oOOo------- |marc_carrion@yahoo.es| | ooO Ooo | ----( )--( )----------- () () __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.comReceived on Thursday, 23 January 2003 11:39:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:40 UTC