W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003

Re: rdfs:class and rdfs:resource

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:36:52 -0700
Message-ID: <003301c314d8$8e3bc8c0$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: Francesco CannistrÓ <fracan@inwind.it>, "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, "Www-Rdf-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

I'd say they were "born" together.

Perhaps this restatement will clarify my position.
1. Person (the word) and rdfs:Resource (the word) and rdfs:Class (the word)
are members of rdfs:Class (the class).
2. Person (the class) and rdfs:Resource (the class) and rdfs:Class (the
are subClasses of rdfs:Resource (the class).
3. My integration context changes rdfs:Class from a class (of words) to a
set (of words).
Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francesco CannistrÓ" <fracan@inwind.it>
To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>; "Www-Rdf-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: rdfs:class and rdfs:resource

> > "thing" is a word. All words are things, including the word "word" and
> > word "thing". If we can categorise something as being a "word" then we
> > also categorise it as being a "thing". Hence "word" is a subclass of
> > "thing". Further, all words are subclasses of "thing".
> >
> > "thing" is analogous to <rdfs:Resource> and "word" to <rdfs:Class>.
> What is sure is that to define rdfs:Class as an instance of rdfs:Resource
> (that makes presume that the concept of "Resource" is earlier than that
> of "Class") and then assert that rdfs:Resource is of type rdfs:Class in
> order to fix the concept of "Resource" is a little bit confusing and
> circular.
> This does not mean that it's a logical paradox.
> But my question is: what resource was born first, rdfs:Resource or
> rdfs:Class ?
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 16:38:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:42 UTC