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

Re: OWL 1.1... does this make sense

From: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 23:31:56 +0000
To: james.lapalme@videotron.ca
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <200712012331.56354.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>

Hi James,

On Friday 30 November 2007, james.lapalme@videotron.ca wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using an implementation of OWL 1.1 in TopBraid Composer.
> Does the folowwing make sense :

I'm not sure what you mean by making sense. Are you asking if these statements 
are logically consistent, or are you asking a deeper question?

>
> I have defined the following classes :
>
> Class A
> Class B
> Class C
> Class D
>
> I have defined the following roles (properties) :
>
> role1
> role2
>
> This the following make sense :
>
> Class is defined by
>
> role1 exacly 1 Class B
> role2 exactly 1 Class C
> role2 exactly 1 Class D

So, this should mean that every instance of your class has:

any number of role1 associations
any number of role2 associations
exactly one of the role1 associations is to an instance of class B
exactly one of the role2 associations is to an instance of class C
exactly one of the role3 associations is to an instance of class D

Is that what you intended?

> Thank you,
>
> James

Matthew
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2007 23:32:09 GMT

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