- From: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:44:18 -0000
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> thing in all objects that can have color, all them > will have the property color, then the domain of the > property color is going to be ObjectsWithColor, but we > don't want objects that are type of ObjectsWithColor > ant not type of anything else. Again I think you are confusing "Class" in OO with "Class" in RDF. <x> <rdf:type> <ObjectsWithColor> doesn't mean that <x> is not of any type other than <ObjectsWithColor>. It is perfectly okay to have that statement on its own. Similarly in you're earlier example <#foo> <rdf:type> <A> entails the statement <#foo> <rdf:type> <C>. Indeed it for any resource #bar one can accurately, if needlessly compose the RDF/XML: <rdfs:Resource id="#bar"/>, and that's a superclass even of your <C> class. This isn't a programming language. It is a language for describing resources. Compare with English. When I say "I am a human being", that statement isn't untrue because I didn't use the more accurate "I am a man" or "I am an Irishman" or "I am a married Irish Software Developer between the ages of 25 to 35 in full-time employment who is registered to vote and doesn't drive a car". Classes in RDF are far more comparable to nouns in English than to classes in OO.
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 12:44:46 UTC