- From: Paul Gearon <pag@tucanatech.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:46:43 +1000
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi,
I wasn't going to answer, as I'm still learning schema stuff and I may be
wrong. But if I am then it would be useful for me to be corrected by others. :-)
Ander Altuna/LABEIN wrote:
> Then a company decides to extend the schema and create two new kinds of
> employee based on the previous class but with some concrete information
> about them, that is their nationality.
>
> <rdf:description rdf:about="http://example.org#australian">
> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://example.org#employee"/>
> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/>
> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://example.org#employee"/>
> <example:nationality>australian</example:nationality>
> </rdf:description>
The way I understand it, this is a class (a subclass of employee) and not an
instance. It has type "&rdfs;Class", but it does not have type "employee".
An employee *instance* that has type "australian" will also have type
"employee", but this is not an instance of an employee... it's a class
describing employees.
Also, I believe that it's acceptable to leave out that "australian" has type
"Class", because it is a subclass, and therefore must be of type class. (On
the other hand, you might not want to use an inferencer, in which case you
could leave it in).
--
Regards,
Paul Gearon
Software Engineer Telephone: +61 7 3876 2188
Tucana Technologies Fax: +61 7 3876 4899
http://www.tucanatech.com
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane mittam.
(Translation from latin: "I have a catapult. Give me all the money,
or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.")
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 19:50:29 UTC