 |
 |
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