mån 2006-04-24 klockan 13:13 +0100 skrev Pete Johnston:
> It seems to me we have to treat "being a Vocabulary Encoding Scheme" or
> "being a Syntax Encoding Scheme" as features of the way a class or
> datatype is referred to in a particular statement or DCAP, not
> intrinsic, global characteristics of the class or datatype.
Well, I sort of agree, but not completely.
According to RDF, a Datatype is also a Class, that is
rdfs:Datatype rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class
For example, xsd:date (which is a Datatype) is also a class.
That means that all Datatypes can be used as the class of a value, i.e.
in the position of a vocabulary encoding scheme. Which I did in my
example.
However, it is *not* true that all classes are Datatypes. The class
foaf:Person is clearly not, for example. Such classes are *not* valid as
Syntax encoding schemes.
So being a syntax encoding scheme means more than being a vocabulary
encoding scheme, in my opinion.
/Mikael
>
> Pete
>
> --
> Pete Johnston
> Research Officer (Interoperability)
> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
> tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
>
>
> --
> Pete Johnston
> Research Officer (Interoperability)
> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
> tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
>
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|