Mikael Nilsson wrote:
> 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.
Yes, agreed.
> So being a syntax encoding scheme means more than being a vocabulary
> encoding scheme, in my opinion.
Oh, yes, I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that the distinction between
classes and datatypes or that between "vocabulary encoding scheme" and
"synatx encoding scheme" wasn't important.
I was suggesting only that we need to think of "vocabulary encoding
scheme" and "syntax encoding scheme" as "roles"/"functions"/"positions"
(using your term above) that classes and datatypes "perform"/"occupy" in
statements
The role/position of "vocabulary encoding scheme" may be occupied by a
class (which might also be a datatype, but might not be) and the
role/position of "syntax encoding scheme" may only be occupied by a
datatype.
But making a global assertion that some resource "is a vocabulary
encoding scheme" (etc) doesn't seem quite right, because it suggests (to
me, at least) that they will always (only?) be "in that
role/function/position", which isn't the case.
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/
|