- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:27:34 -0500 (EST)
- To: nogievet@cogx.com
- Cc: costello@mitre.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com> Subject: Re: Treating a class as both an individual and a class? Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:24:08 -0800 > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > No, this is not good modelling. If you want to say that Davenport has a > > River, you should say so, via > > > > <City rdf:ID="Davenport"> > > <rdfs:subClassOf> > > <owl:Restriction> > > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="hasFeature" /> > > <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://geodesy.org#River"/> > > </owl:Restriction> > > </rdfs:subClassOf> > > .... > > </City> > > > > Hmmm.... > Peter, in your example an individual city is a class? No, Davenport is an instance of the class City. > Should not it be something like: > <CityOnARiver rdf:ID="Davenport"> > .... > </CityOnARiver> > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="CityOnARiver"> > <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#River"> > <rdfs:subClassOf> > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="hasFeature" /> > <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://geodesy.org#River"/> > </owl:Restriction> > </rdfs:subClassOf> > </owl:Class> This makes a city on a river be a river, which is probably not what is wanted. > --Nikita peter
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 10:27:50 UTC