W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: rdfs-constraining-containers, rdfs-container-membership-superProperty

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:13:47 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Looks good.

Does this mean that rdfs:contains would be a superproperty of rdf:_1, 
rdf:_2, etc.?


At 03:42 PM 4/11/02 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>I suggest we resolve the rdfs-container-membership-superProperty by defining
>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
>   <daml:toClass

Graham Klyne
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 12:12:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:57 UTC