Marc Carrion wrote: > You instantiate in RDF, when you create a resource > and you say it's of type X, you have an instance of > class X. At least that's our interpretation. That's a misunderstanding. A more appropriate analogy would be to view rdf:type as an interface declaration. There is no concept of a 'real' class of a resource in RDF. Besides, you always can add more rdf:type predicates to a resource afterwards, which may as well be subtypes of already 'declared' types. This is completely different from an OO instantiation concept. - WolfReceived on Friday, 24 January 2003 10:32:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:40 UTC