On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 03:15 +0200, Evgeny Egorochkin wrote: > Hi guys, > > This is in response to the lengthy discussion on #xesam that happened while I > was sleeping: > > >(22:35:51) kamstrup: in other words a field is abstract if and only if it > has children > >(22:36:17) jamiemcc: yes and is not used in searches > >(22:36:30) kamstrup: also meaning that third parties can not extend fields > which does not have any children in the Xesam onto > >(22:36:45) kamstrup: moreover I also think we agreed that you can not > assign any value to an abstract field > >(22:36:54) kamstrup: (maybe obvious) > >(22:36:57) jamiemcc: yes > >(22:37:12) kamstrup: good, I think we agree then > >(22:37:15) jamiemcc: abstract are like intermediate classes > >(22:37:22) kamstrup: yes > >(22:37:31) jamiemcc: they ar enot used directly but instead are always > inherited from > >(22:37:36) kamstrup: only leaf nodes of the onto can contain values > > The benefits of this approach: > > >(22:54:46) kamstrup: and having this as a restriction in Xesam does not > >render us incompatible with Nepo > > This renders xesam incompatible with most if not any rdfs based approaches. > xesam->rdfs_derivative mapping is ok but it breaks in the opposite direction. >
since when was full rdfs compatibility a necessity? xesam is supposed to be a subset of rdf (at least that was my understanding) If abstract fields are flawed then you need to demonstrate with suitable examples why. jamie _______________________________________________ Xesam mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
