On 11/5/14 4:11 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
>
> I am not trying to be offensive; I really don't understand what you
> mean by "class is inherited to properties" ; could you possibly give
> an example in some object oriented language?
>
>

Sorry. I thought I explained it. Here's another try:

bf:workTitle domain=bf:Work
bf:instanceTitle domain=bf:Instance

:X a bf:Work
    bf:instanceTitle [
       .... ] .

1) :X is now instance of both bf:Work and bf:Instance, because domain of
bf:instanceTitle is bf:Instance

bf:workTitle domain=bf:Work
bf:instanceTitle domain=bf:Title

:X a bf:Work
   bf:instanceTitle [a bf:Title
        .... ] .

:X is now an instance of both bf:Work and bf:Title because the domain of
bf:instanceTitle is bf:Title

The fact that :X has been declared a bf:Work does not alter the domain
of bf:instanceTitle, nor the fact that the use bf:instanceTitle with a
domain of bf:Title means that :X is now an instance of the domain that
has been defined in the ontology for bf:instanceTitle. It may seem
illogical to you that anyone would assume this, but it happens quite
regularly when one is thinking in XML-ish terms, and terms are defined
locally within the hierarchy:

<work>
    <title></title>
</work>

<instance>
    <title></title>
</instance>

These are two different titles in XML because one is work.title and one
is instance.title. RDF doesn't have "locality" in that sense. There is
no hierarchy that defines "things in the context of the local position."
The "things" in RDF retain their own semantics wherever they appear in
the graph.

kc

--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600