- From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:42:57 -0500
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
- CC: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
>
> > Suppose that I want to use this River class as an individual, as
> > shown here:
> >
> > <Country rdf:ID="China">
> > <hasFeature rdf:resource="http://geodesy.org#River"/>
> > </Country>
> >
> > Note that the property "hasFeature" has as its value the class
> > River. Thus, the River class is being treated as an "individual".
>
> Hmm. I don't think that this is correct modelling. You are *not*
> saying anything related to whether China has a river in it.
What I was trying to express in this example is that the country China
possesses the geographic feature "River". I agree that it is a poor
example. Let me give another example.
In this example, I would like to express some of the major features of
my hometown of Davenport, Iowa:
<City rdf:ID="Davenport">
<hasFeature rdf:resource="http://geodesy.org#River"/>
<hasFeature rdf:resource="http://geodesy.org#Interstate"/>
<hasFeature rdf:resource="http://geodesy.org#Airport"/>
</City>
Is this good modelling? Does it effectively model the major features of
my hometown? Note that River, Interstate, and Airport are "classes".
Thus, in this example I am treating these classes as individuals.
> However, you do need to remember that metaclasses may not give you all
> that you might think that they are giving you.
A very interesting statement Peter. Would you elaborate please? /Roger
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 07:43:39 UTC