- From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:40:31 -0800
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> To: <nogievet@cogx.com> Cc: <costello@mitre.org>; <www-rdf-logic@w3.org> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Treating a class as both an individual and a class? > 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. Sorry, I am missing this: do you agree with me or not? How can rdfs:subClassOf be used to denote "instance of" Should not "rdf:Type" be used instead (as I am trying to do bellow)? > > 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. It is a typo, of course: I meant: <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Class"> --Nikita.
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 10:40:45 UTC