Re: Question about value vocabularies and range

Karen
 
Surely the application profile approach is better for two reasons:
 
1. You can use the vocabulary encoding scheme entity to specify the vocabulary
for the range of the property.
2. Different profiles can specify different VESs, so use of the property is more
flexible than if OWL constraints were declared.
 
[But it's a mystery to me how the AP approach can be 'translated' into OWL, so
I'll echo your request: can anyone explain if it is possible to use OWL to
restrict range values to what is effectively an instance of skos:ConceptScheme
(which is a class, ok, but it's a specific instance of a concept scheme that
contains the values for the range constraint).]
 
Cheers
 
Gordon 


On 06 May 2011 at 16:43 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Thanks to Jeff, Kevin and Jon.
>
> > Basically the owl restriction
> > owl:allValuesFrom says that any value for "Language of text" must considered
> > to be of a particular type (member of a specific class).
>
> I probably wasn't specific enough in my question, though.
> dc:LinguisticSystem, refers to any linguistic system, not a specific 
> list, right? I think a class definition is too broad for what I'm 
> needing. (Which is why I suspect this may get into the application 
> profile area.)
>
> owl:allValuesFrom can either define a class, or a datatype. To specify 
> a list of values ("red, blue, green") you can use owl:oneOf, and the 
> values then follow... but can you say: "owl:oneOf -> 
> http://RDVocab.info/termList/RDAcolour?"
>
> Maybe it would be best to take OWL out of the equation and ask:
>
> I want to define a property that takes a specific list of values as 
> its range. That list of values needs to be defined independently of 
> the property definition because it will be used by other properties as 
> well and will be maintained separately from the property definition.
>
> What's the best way to do this? And the more philosophical question: 
> Should this be "relegated" to application profiles rather than 
> building this constraint into a property definition?
>
> kc
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>