- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:30:03 -0500
- To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Message-Id: <20010708203004.RNGZ22602.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@localhost>
On Thursday, July 5, 2001, at 03:43 PM, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote: > Annotated DAML+OIL (March 2001) Ontology Markup > http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru.html > > Contains the following example markup: > > <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#Car"/> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/> > </daml:Disjoint> > > Do you mean that this can be equivalently written like this: > > <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Car"/> > <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Person"/> > <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Plant"/> > </daml:Disjoint> No, You'd need to remove the # signs. Also note that, in following the rules of rdf:ID, duplicate uses of the same ID are not allowed. > Or do you think that the above mentioned markup should be instead: > > <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Car"/> > <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/> > <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Plant"/> > </daml:Disjoint> No, this is completely different. -- "Aaron Swartz" | The Semantic Web <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | i'm working to make it happen
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2001 16:30:11 UTC