W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Re: comment horrocks-01

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:54:49 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I missed this ...

Some examples of why we might want to reason about comments:


<rdf:Property rdf:about="&my;comment">
  <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;comment"/>
   I use this property to distinguish comments made by me
   from other rdfs:comments.

2: (In OWL Full)

<owl:Class rdf:ID="someThings">
      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&rdfs;comment" />
This thing is in the class someThings.

The first seems to be the whole point of having RDF(S) being able to talk
about itself. User level extensions are permitted - if you don't like that
work in OWL DL or a subset.

The second is significant because we have dropped rdf:aboutEach and
This shows how an rdf:aboutEach type scenario can be approached in OWL - put
all the items we wish to discuss in a class and then use a restriction - in
this case on rdfs:comment, to add a comment to every resource in that class.

A true about each can be done in the following way in OWL Full:

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="&eg;hasMember">
  <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;member"/>
  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&eg;hasMember"/>
  <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#aContainer"/>
      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&rdfs;comment" />
This thing is in the container #aContainer.

I think we should be pointing Ian at XML comments ...
They seem to do what he really wants.

Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 09:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC