- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 2002年11月27日 13:39:16 +0000
- To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127132916.0ab7c538@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
At 05:03 27/11/2002 -0800, Richard H. McCullough wrote: [...] >##### I agree. I just got lazy. I didn't have a printout of the >document, and I was trying to manage by flipping between screens. BTW, >the document has no section numbers or page numbers. Right. Will fix. [...] >##### OK, here's the proof that your definition of Class is contradictory. >##### I don't remember exactly what you said in the rdf interest discussion. >##### I think the basic idea was that "Class" is a class instead of a set >of class names. >##### The problem with your definition comes out when you consider >##### the PROPER subclass relations between Class and Resource. >##### By the definition of Resource >##### every class except Resource is a proper subclass of Resource I think this falls at the first hurdle. I hearby define eg:Class, a class that is not a proper subclass of rdfs:Resource. eg:Class rdf:type rdfs:Class . eg:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource . rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf eg:Class . Are you assuming that two classes with exactly the same members must be the same class? This is not true of rdfs:Class. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 08:39:40 UTC