- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:03:09 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 15:42 11/04/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >I suggest we resolve the rdfs-container-membership-superProperty by defining >one: >e.g. rdfs:contains > > >I suggest we then declare rdfs-constraining-containers as out of scope on >the basis that it can be addressed by DAML+OIL. All indications are that OWL >will contrinue to address this issue. > >The DAML+OIL mantra is: > > > ><daml:Restriction rdf:ID="ConstrainedContainer"> > <rdfs:comment> > This is the class of resources all of > whose rdfs:contains edges point to a > resource of type eg:ElementsConstrainedToThisClass. > To have a Bag, a Seq or an Alt with such a constrained > declare the resource to have both type Bag and type > ConstrainedContainer. > Alternatively construct a new class that subclasses both > this class and the desired container class. > </rdfs:comment> > <daml:onProperty >rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#contains"/> > <daml:toClass >rdf:resource="http://example.org/ElementsConstrainedToThisClass"/> ></daml:Restriction> > >Reference: >http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru#restrictions Brilliant; thanks Jeremy then I think we can close this with a clear conscience. Brian >Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 10:05:51 UTC