[Xesam] abstract properties?
jamie.mccrack at googlemail.com
Wed Feb 13 19:08:43 PST 2008
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
If abstract fields are flawed then you need to demonstrate with suitable
More information about the Xesam