- From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:58:17 +0500
- To: <marc@jfcarrion.com>, "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Collegues, Suppose your discussion is very close to problem discussed in the SUO mailing list - http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg01889.html Leonid =================================== Leonid Ototsky - leo@mmk.ru, leo@mgn.ru http://ototsky.mgn.ru Chief Specialist of the Computer Center Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works - http://www.mmk.ru Russia ========================================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Carrion" <marc_carrion@yahoo.es> To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:25 AM Subject: RE: abstract class > > > --- Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie> 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 > ideas. > > > 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. > > Regards, > Marc > > ===== > ......\|||/................................................ > (. .) > -oOOo---0---oOOo------- > |marc_carrion@yahoo.es| > | ooO Ooo | > ----( )--( )----------- > () () > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com >
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 00:54:54 UTC