- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:02:02 -0800
- To: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> I think a "proper name" construct can be introduced without extending or
> bending RDF as something like this:
>
> [AnyResource]--properName-->[(anon?)] --rdf:Type--> [ProperName]
> [ ] --value-----> "(name string)"
Can I ask a really stupid question: Why can't this just be:
[AnyResource]--properName-->"(name string)"
[AnyResource]--rdf:Type-->[ProperlyNamed]
What is the utility of the extra node? Can't the schema for "properName" indicate that
its object is expected to be a public string just like "rdf:value"? Also can't
{[AnyResource]--rdf:Type-->[ProperlyNamed]} be inferred by relationships hung off of
properName ?
<signature format="mime/topic">
topic: Seth Russell
isConfusedAbout: (anagramOf: DAML)
prefers:
{topic: DAML
anagramOf: Distributed Agent Markup Language}
topic: DAML
inContextOf:
{ url: http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/11/01/semanticweb/index.html
topic: DAML
anagramOf: Distributed Agent Markup Language}
inContextOf:
{url: http://www.daml.org/
topic: DAML
anagramOf: DARPA Agent Markup Language}
topic: DARPA
anagramOf: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
url: http://www.darpa.mil/
</signature>
Received on Friday, 3 November 2000 15:01:24 UTC