7

There are numerous examples of this.

Among the many, we can consider this one.

The above one says,

  • rdfs:Class declares a resource as a class for other resources.
  • rdf:Property – the class of properties.

Now, my question is, why is a class considered to be defined in RDF schema and property is considered to be simple RDF.

Masroor
  • 886
  • 1
  • 8
  • 23

1 Answers1

7

The reason is purely historic. The RDF model was defined before RDF Schema came along, and it already contained a vocabulary term for the notion of a property, so rdf:Property is part of the RDF namespace.

The notion of explicit classes was first introduced in RDF Schema, however, so it became rdfs:Class.

Jeen Broekstra
  • 21,642
  • 4
  • 51
  • 73
  • I never thought that the reason will be so trivial. Thanks anyway. – Masroor Nov 22 '14 at 10:47
  • 1
    @JoshuaTaylor It is my custom to wait for two/three days before accepting an answer just to see if *a better one* pops up. I find it better to wait that period of time than to accept one and then accept another. – Masroor Nov 23 '14 at 00:28
  • @Masroor Not a bad idea at all. I may have misinterpreted your original comment. 'Thanks anyway' can sound sort of dismissive, like 'sure, but that's not what I actually want.' I think you probably didn't mean it like that, though. – Joshua Taylor Nov 23 '14 at 00:30