Re: Constraining Collections?

Having been there myself... the only caveat is that this requires OWL Full. AFAIK, OWL DL 
does not allow putting a restriction on a property defined in RDFS. And no, I have never 
found a way around that!

It depends on your application whether this is a problem, though.

Ivan

Geoff Chappell wrote:
> Yeah, that seems cleaner (and less likely to freak out dls?).
> 
> rss:Channel rdfs:subClassOf 
>  [ a owl:Restriction;
>   owl:onProperty rss:items;
>   owl:allValuesFrom 
>    [rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Seq,
>     [a owl:Restriction;
> 	owl:onProperty rdfs:member;
>       owl:allValuesFrom rss:item
>     ]
>    ]
>   ].
> 
> - Geoff
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
>>Behalf Of Dan Brickley
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:00 PM
>>To: Geoff Chappell
>>Cc: 'Brian Manley'; semantic-web@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Constraining Collections?
>>
>>
>>Quick side thought: does having rdfs:member help at all?
>>It is superproperty of _1 _2 etc...
>>
>>Or perhaps OWL is a little class-centric in design, with
>>fewer property-oriented facilities?
>>
>>Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman
W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices
C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413
1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153;
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/