Print

Print


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