- 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