Why is rdfs:XMLLiteral a class and an instance?Property chain reasoning over rdf:typeGetting class of an individual, using SPARQLDoubts in development of a basic ontology using RDF/S: ontology reuse and “instance vs. inheritance”Why Jena is not returning declared RDFS properties?How to infer instances in Protégé with a minimum property restriction of a defined class?how to generate triples by using sparql entailment rules in DotnetRDF?OWL Class and Subclass Property InheritanceClass relations in OWLCan a class in one context be considered an instance in another?Using external ontology and loading it into a database
Chemistry Riddle
My current job follows "worst practices". How can I talk about my experience in an interview without giving off red flags?
Higher calorie ice cream
Is it ethical to tell my teaching assistant that I like him?
Xcode 10.3 Installation
Recruiter wants to represent me for a role that I've already applied to
An Italian table, is it in fact Arabic?
Why did computer video outputs go from digital to analog, then back to digital?
How did pilots avoid thunderstorms and related weather before “reliable” airborne weather radar was introduced on airliners?
Where can I find maps and other historical resources / references of Calcutta / Kolkata in the Victorian era?
Find All Entire Functions that Satisfy Some Condition
Is it possible to access the complete command line including pipes in a bash script?
Magic is the twist
"It is what it is" in French
Inverse Colombian Function
Is it better to merge "often" or only after completion do a big merge of feature branches?
What do Unicorns want?
Bounded Torsion, without Mazur’s Theorem
How can I show that the speed of light in vacuum is the same in all reference frames?
Pass USB 3.0 connection through D-SUB connector
How could Barty Crouch Jr. have run out of Polyjuice Potion at the end of the Goblet of Fire movie?
Is it OK to accept a job opportunity while planning on not taking it?
What does a black-and-white Puerto Rican flag signify?
Do I care if the housing market has gone up or down, if I'm moving from one house to another?
Why is rdfs:XMLLiteral a class and an instance?
Property chain reasoning over rdf:typeGetting class of an individual, using SPARQLDoubts in development of a basic ontology using RDF/S: ontology reuse and “instance vs. inheritance”Why Jena is not returning declared RDFS properties?How to infer instances in Protégé with a minimum property restriction of a defined class?how to generate triples by using sparql entailment rules in DotnetRDF?OWL Class and Subclass Property InheritanceClass relations in OWLCan a class in one context be considered an instance in another?Using external ontology and loading it into a database
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I am new in the field and I am a bit confused about the definition of the RDFS vocabulary.
Specifically, the vocabulary defines that rdfs:XMLLiteral, which is a class, is the subclass of rdfs:Literal (rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:Literal are connected using rdfs:subClassOf).
This is straightforward and is easily understood. However, the vocabulary also said the class rdfs:XMLLiteral is an instance of rdfs:DataType (linked by rdf:type). So, in this case, why the rdf:type is used instead of rdfs:subClassOf, given both the rdfs:XMLLiteral and the rdfs:DataType are classes.
My personal thought is that, because subclass relationship between Class A and B (suppose A ∈ B) implies that every individual that belongs to A also belongs to B.
So suppose we have an "x" which belongs to the rdfs:XMLLiteral class, if there was a subclass relationship between rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:DataType, then "x" is also a rdfs:DataType, which is not the fact (because "x" is just an individual literal). Furthermore, because the rdfs:DataType and rdfs:Class are connected by rdfs:subClassOf according to the vocabulary, then "x" is also a class, if the subclass relationship between rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:DataType existed. Therefore, such a subclass relationship should not exist.
I do not know if my thought here is right, and I hope someone can give some suggestions to help me understand the subclass relationship and instance relationship in the RDFS vocabulary.
rdf owl rdfs
edited Mar 26 at 14:40
unor
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
asked Mar 26 at 14:10
Chengke WuChengke Wu
111 bronze badge
add a comment |
I am new in the field and I am a bit confused about the definition of the RDFS vocabulary.
Specifically, the vocabulary defines that rdfs:XMLLiteral, which is a class, is the subclass of rdfs:Literal (rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:Literal are connected using rdfs:subClassOf).
This is straightforward and is easily understood. However, the vocabulary also said the class rdfs:XMLLiteral is an instance of rdfs:DataType (linked by rdf:type). So, in this case, why the rdf:type is used instead of rdfs:subClassOf, given both the rdfs:XMLLiteral and the rdfs:DataType are classes.
My personal thought is that, because subclass relationship between Class A and B (suppose A ∈ B) implies that every individual that belongs to A also belongs to B.
So suppose we have an "x" which belongs to the rdfs:XMLLiteral class, if there was a subclass relationship between rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:DataType, then "x" is also a rdfs:DataType, which is not the fact (because "x" is just an individual literal). Furthermore, because the rdfs:DataType and rdfs:Class are connected by rdfs:subClassOf according to the vocabulary, then "x" is also a class, if the subclass relationship between rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:DataType existed. Therefore, such a subclass relationship should not exist.
I do not know if my thought here is right, and I hope someone can give some suggestions to help me understand the subclass relationship and instance relationship in the RDFS vocabulary.
rdf owl rdfs
edited Mar 26 at 14:40
unor
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
asked Mar 26 at 14:10
Chengke WuChengke Wu
111 bronze badge
Note that it’srdf:XMLLiteral, notrdfs:XMLLiteral.
– cygri
Mar 26 at 20:36
add a comment |
I am new in the field and I am a bit confused about the definition of the RDFS vocabulary.
Specifically, the vocabulary defines that rdfs:XMLLiteral, which is a class, is the subclass of rdfs:Literal (rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:Literal are connected using rdfs:subClassOf).
This is straightforward and is easily understood. However, the vocabulary also said the class rdfs:XMLLiteral is an instance of rdfs:DataType (linked by rdf:type). So, in this case, why the rdf:type is used instead of rdfs:subClassOf, given both the rdfs:XMLLiteral and the rdfs:DataType are classes.
My personal thought is that, because subclass relationship between Class A and B (suppose A ∈ B) implies that every individual that belongs to A also belongs to B.
So suppose we have an "x" which belongs to the rdfs:XMLLiteral class, if there was a subclass relationship between rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:DataType, then "x" is also a rdfs:DataType, which is not the fact (because "x" is just an individual literal). Furthermore, because the rdfs:DataType and rdfs:Class are connected by rdfs:subClassOf according to the vocabulary, then "x" is also a class, if the subclass relationship between rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:DataType existed. Therefore, such a subclass relationship should not exist.
I do not know if my thought here is right, and I hope someone can give some suggestions to help me understand the subclass relationship and instance relationship in the RDFS vocabulary.
rdf owl rdfs
edited Mar 26 at 14:40
unor
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
asked Mar 26 at 14:10
Chengke WuChengke Wu
111 bronze badge
I am new in the field and I am a bit confused about the definition of the RDFS vocabulary.
Specifically, the vocabulary defines that rdfs:XMLLiteral, which is a class, is the subclass of rdfs:Literal (rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:Literal are connected using rdfs:subClassOf).
This is straightforward and is easily understood. However, the vocabulary also said the class rdfs:XMLLiteral is an instance of rdfs:DataType (linked by rdf:type). So, in this case, why the rdf:type is used instead of rdfs:subClassOf, given both the rdfs:XMLLiteral and the rdfs:DataType are classes.
My personal thought is that, because subclass relationship between Class A and B (suppose A ∈ B) implies that every individual that belongs to A also belongs to B.
So suppose we have an "x" which belongs to the rdfs:XMLLiteral class, if there was a subclass relationship between rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:DataType, then "x" is also a rdfs:DataType, which is not the fact (because "x" is just an individual literal). Furthermore, because the rdfs:DataType and rdfs:Class are connected by rdfs:subClassOf according to the vocabulary, then "x" is also a class, if the subclass relationship between rdfs:XMLLiteral and rdfs:DataType existed. Therefore, such a subclass relationship should not exist.
I do not know if my thought here is right, and I hope someone can give some suggestions to help me understand the subclass relationship and instance relationship in the RDFS vocabulary.
rdf owl rdfs
rdf owl rdfs
edited Mar 26 at 14:40
unor
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
asked Mar 26 at 14:10
Chengke WuChengke Wu
111 bronze badge
edited Mar 26 at 14:40
unor
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
asked Mar 26 at 14:10
Chengke WuChengke Wu
111 bronze badge
edited Mar 26 at 14:40
unor
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
edited Mar 26 at 14:40
unor
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
edited Mar 26 at 14:40
unor
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
71.1k18 gold badges151 silver badges260 bronze badges
asked Mar 26 at 14:10
Chengke WuChengke Wu
111 bronze badge
asked Mar 26 at 14:10
Chengke WuChengke Wu
111 bronze badge
asked Mar 26 at 14:10
Chengke WuChengke Wu
111 bronze badge
111 bronze badge
Note that it’srdf:XMLLiteral, notrdfs:XMLLiteral.
– cygri
Mar 26 at 20:36
add a comment |
Note that it’srdf:XMLLiteral, notrdfs:XMLLiteral.
– cygri
Mar 26 at 20:36
Note that it’s
rdf:XMLLiteral, not rdfs:XMLLiteral.– cygri
Mar 26 at 20:36
Note that it’s
rdf:XMLLiteral, not rdfs:XMLLiteral.– cygri
Mar 26 at 20:36
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
If you understand well the set-theoretic relations ∈ and ⊆, then you have a good basis for understanding rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf. What you describe about rdf:XMLLiteral is pretty accurate. However:
suppose A ∈ B
This means that A belongs to B, not that every individual that belongs to A also belong to B.
A rdf:type B could be understood (roughly) as "A ∈ B", while A rdfs:subClassOf B could be understood (roughly) as "A ⊆ B".
A set can be an element of another set, as well as included in yet another one, or the same. E.g., a ⊆ a,a and a ∈ a,a.
However, the analogy with set theory is only roughly correct because RDF allows classes to be instances of themselves, whereas set theory forbids sets to be elements of themselves (assuming the axiom of regularity). The reason why RDF still "works" is due to the way its semantics is defined, where rdf:type is not really interpreted as the set membership relation, and rdfs:subClassOf is not really interpreted as set inclusion.
answered Mar 26 at 17:56
Antoine ZimmermannAntoine Zimmermann
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55359238%2fwhy-is-rdfsxmlliteral-a-class-and-an-instance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you understand well the set-theoretic relations ∈ and ⊆, then you have a good basis for understanding rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf. What you describe about rdf:XMLLiteral is pretty accurate. However:
suppose A ∈ B
This means that A belongs to B, not that every individual that belongs to A also belong to B.
A rdf:type B could be understood (roughly) as "A ∈ B", while A rdfs:subClassOf B could be understood (roughly) as "A ⊆ B".
A set can be an element of another set, as well as included in yet another one, or the same. E.g., a ⊆ a,a and a ∈ a,a.
However, the analogy with set theory is only roughly correct because RDF allows classes to be instances of themselves, whereas set theory forbids sets to be elements of themselves (assuming the axiom of regularity). The reason why RDF still "works" is due to the way its semantics is defined, where rdf:type is not really interpreted as the set membership relation, and rdfs:subClassOf is not really interpreted as set inclusion.
answered Mar 26 at 17:56
Antoine ZimmermannAntoine Zimmermann
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
add a comment |
If you understand well the set-theoretic relations ∈ and ⊆, then you have a good basis for understanding rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf. What you describe about rdf:XMLLiteral is pretty accurate. However:
suppose A ∈ B
This means that A belongs to B, not that every individual that belongs to A also belong to B.
A rdf:type B could be understood (roughly) as "A ∈ B", while A rdfs:subClassOf B could be understood (roughly) as "A ⊆ B".
A set can be an element of another set, as well as included in yet another one, or the same. E.g., a ⊆ a,a and a ∈ a,a.
However, the analogy with set theory is only roughly correct because RDF allows classes to be instances of themselves, whereas set theory forbids sets to be elements of themselves (assuming the axiom of regularity). The reason why RDF still "works" is due to the way its semantics is defined, where rdf:type is not really interpreted as the set membership relation, and rdfs:subClassOf is not really interpreted as set inclusion.
answered Mar 26 at 17:56
Antoine ZimmermannAntoine Zimmermann
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
add a comment |
If you understand well the set-theoretic relations ∈ and ⊆, then you have a good basis for understanding rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf. What you describe about rdf:XMLLiteral is pretty accurate. However:
suppose A ∈ B
This means that A belongs to B, not that every individual that belongs to A also belong to B.
A rdf:type B could be understood (roughly) as "A ∈ B", while A rdfs:subClassOf B could be understood (roughly) as "A ⊆ B".
A set can be an element of another set, as well as included in yet another one, or the same. E.g., a ⊆ a,a and a ∈ a,a.
However, the analogy with set theory is only roughly correct because RDF allows classes to be instances of themselves, whereas set theory forbids sets to be elements of themselves (assuming the axiom of regularity). The reason why RDF still "works" is due to the way its semantics is defined, where rdf:type is not really interpreted as the set membership relation, and rdfs:subClassOf is not really interpreted as set inclusion.
answered Mar 26 at 17:56
Antoine ZimmermannAntoine Zimmermann
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
If you understand well the set-theoretic relations ∈ and ⊆, then you have a good basis for understanding rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf. What you describe about rdf:XMLLiteral is pretty accurate. However:
suppose A ∈ B
This means that A belongs to B, not that every individual that belongs to A also belong to B.
A rdf:type B could be understood (roughly) as "A ∈ B", while A rdfs:subClassOf B could be understood (roughly) as "A ⊆ B".
A set can be an element of another set, as well as included in yet another one, or the same. E.g., a ⊆ a,a and a ∈ a,a.
However, the analogy with set theory is only roughly correct because RDF allows classes to be instances of themselves, whereas set theory forbids sets to be elements of themselves (assuming the axiom of regularity). The reason why RDF still "works" is due to the way its semantics is defined, where rdf:type is not really interpreted as the set membership relation, and rdfs:subClassOf is not really interpreted as set inclusion.
answered Mar 26 at 17:56
Antoine ZimmermannAntoine Zimmermann
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Mar 26 at 17:56
Antoine ZimmermannAntoine Zimmermann
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Mar 26 at 17:56
Antoine ZimmermannAntoine Zimmermann
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
answered Mar 26 at 17:56
Antoine ZimmermannAntoine Zimmermann
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
4,04210 silver badges25 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Got a question that you can’t ask on public Stack Overflow? Learn more about sharing private information with Stack Overflow for Teams.
Got a question that you can’t ask on public Stack Overflow? Learn more about sharing private information with Stack Overflow for Teams.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55359238%2fwhy-is-rdfsxmlliteral-a-class-and-an-instance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Note that it’s
rdf:XMLLiteral, notrdfs:XMLLiteral.– cygri
Mar 26 at 20:36