RE: abstract class

--- Jon Hanna <> wrote:
> >   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.
  I'm sorry, I'm not confusing the both models, I'm
saying we would like to have one funcionality in
RDF-Schema, that we don't have now

> <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.
  I know, I just want to say that I don't want this
statement in my model.
> 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.
  I know, you can use UML to describe models too, it's
not a programming language and you can use abstract
> 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".
  I know it's not incorrect, but it's useless, I don't
want to allow people to say useless information. When
you say you are a human being you are also saying you
are a man or a woman, that's the info I would like to
have. If one day we add clones to the definition of
human beings, it's going to be ok to think that when
you say you are a human being you mean you are a man
or a woman or a clone.
> Classes in RDF are far more comparable to nouns in
> English than to classes
> in OO.
  I don't totally agree. If you use RDF correctly you
can represent the same that in UML (I think I saw the
UML Vocabulary in RDF). Everything depends on the use
you want for your RDF data.


      (. .)
|   ooO  Ooo          |
----( )--( )-----------
     ()  ()

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 17:25:43 UTC