类可以作为实例是否正确? [英] is it correct that a class can be an instance?

问题描述

在本文档中 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_introduction

它写为:

rdfs:Resource是rdfs:Class的实例.

rdfs:Resource is an instance of rdfs:Class.

但是它也是这样写的:

这是所有内容的一类

This is the class of everything

这是错字吗?类可以成为实例吗?

is this a typo? can a class be an instance ?

推荐答案

这实际上是一个有趣的问题.我只想在CaptSolo的答案中添加您的评论:

That's actually an interesting question. I just want to add to your comment in CaptSolo's answer:

但是我可以将自定义类定义为实例的实例吗? (我对此表示高度怀疑)

but can I define my custom classes as instances of an instance? ( i highly doubt that )

不是您是否可以做某事"(至少在这种情况下是不行)的问题，而是您所做的事情是否有意义.毕竟，语义网是建立在任何人都可以说任何事情的前提下的.有时会有后果，这可能导致对您的数据进行逻辑"推断.

It's not so much a question of whether you "can" do something or not (at least not in this case), but rather whether what you do will make sense. After all the Semantic Web was built on the premise that anyone can say anything about anything. Sometimes there are consequences, which can lead to "logical" inferences about your data.

所以这很有意义:

:foo a rdfs:Class.
:bar a :foo.

而这个却没有:

:george a foaf:Person.
:foo a :george.

你能断言两者吗?从技术上讲，是的，我认为没有三元商店会阻止您这样做.但是后者是不合逻辑的-每个RDFS类都被定义为其实例集，因此您将人"George"视为一种分类概念.如果您的本体或数据没有意义，那么没人会使用它.

Can you assert both? Technically speaking, yes, I don't think there is a triple store that will stop you from doing so. But the latter is illogical - every RDFS class is defined as the set of its instances, so you are treating a person, "George", as a concept of sorts. If your ontology or data doesn't make sense, then none will use it.

这篇关于类可以作为实例是否正确?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！