Why a class is written as rdfs:Class and a property is written as rdf:Property

Question

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.

Senseless

Answer 1

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.

Tingly

I never thought that the reason will be so trivial. Thanks anyway. – Senseless

@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. – Senseless

@Senseless 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. – Urson