W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Style question

From: ben syverson <w3@likn.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:27:43 -0600
Message-Id: <31488f7e876adf9c5282ce3c0608e6bd@likn.org>
To: semantic-web@w3.org


On Mar 6, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Geoff Chappell wrote:

[...]
> i.e. becca is a person with green eyes. The value of eyeColor for any 
> person
> must be one of the defined EyeColors (green or brown).

Actually, I was shooting simply for: Becca is a person with green and 
brown eyes (brown in the center, green at the edges, specifically, but 
lets assume the user doesn't want to get that specific).

But this raises an interesting question: I'd like to keep the ontology 
in a separate file, so that if a constraint on "person" is updated, I 
don't have to update every person RDF. Is that outsourcing too much 
information from the main files people will be looking at (the RDFs)?

Also, what do I do with a line like:
<likn:instanceOf rdf:resource="http://likn.org/#person" />
Is there a way to define through OWL that anything that is a 
likn:instanceOf is also an owl instance of the target resource's class? 
And how would I tie the two files together? Or should I be doing this 
differently? The ontology should be general enough that individuals 
such as "Becca" don't show up in the ontology file unless they have 
specific restraints...

I'm concerned that rdf:type by itself is too vague. For example:
<dc:title>Music Box Theater</dc:title>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://likn.org/#theater" />
Does this imply that the Music Box is a type of theater, when in fact 
it's an instance of Theater?

- ben
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2005 21:27:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:45 UTC