W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: Legal Persons

From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:27:38 -0700
To: "Turner, David" <davidt@hp.com>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MGEEIEEKKOMOLNHJAHMKAENGEFAA.jmcclure@hypergrove.com>

<snip/>
>> So it was totally incorrect to use rdf:Alt, a subclass of
>> rdfs:Container, as the predicate object (of a unionOf).
>
>Being picky, it's not *totally* incorrect: an rdf:Alt could also be an
>rdfs:Class and therefore be the rdfs:range of something. But you almost
>certainly don't want to do that.
>
Why wouldn't I want to do that?
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/mapping.html says that
rdf:Alt, Seq & Bag are okay under the Class-Only Vocabulary.  Maybe you know
other reasons why I shouldn't create a class, say 	ex:Audience  rdfs:subClassOf
rdf:Bag
or
	ex:Answers rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Seq
or
	ex:Choices rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Alt

<snip/>

>Again, no, lists are collections, containers are containers.
My turn to be picky... Containers, suggestively, have *list items* (smile).

<snip/>

>note that using a container immediately puts you into OWL Full, so a DL
>reasoner will refuse to talk to you.

Is this true for rdf:Alt, rdf:Seq, and rdf:Bag, or just for rdf:Container? The
citation above focuses on the graphs for ontology definitions not instance
documents, and it seems to say it's okay to use those 3 classes (but not their
common superclass, rdf:Container) in ontologies and instance documents.
(Interestingly the Disallowed Vocabulary includes references to rdf:List !)

Thanks,
John
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 22:27:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:55 GMT