RE: abstract class

  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.com