W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2000

Re: The StatementConstraint rdfs:ConstraintProperty

From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.se>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:22:53 +0200
Message-ID: <394F7E3D.5B64C3E2@paranormal.se>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

<description
about="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jun/0043.html">

Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> 
> your example is not valid :
> IntrestStatement is not a statement : it is a class ;
> therefore, the domain of statementPredicate is not Statement, but Class,
> even if you intend to use it only on classes that are subclasses of the Statement class...

You are right.

How do I say that the predicate is only to be used on subclasses of
the Statement class, or the Statement class itself? ... If nothing
else, I could, as you say, change it to:

statementPredicate
    type StatementConstraint
    domain rdfs:Class
    range rdf:predicate


> looks like you are trying to provide RDF statements with Descrition Logic features :
> describing a class in terms of constraints upon its instances...

I think of it as defining propertis for the statement class in the
same way as we are defining propertis for other classes, except that
you don't have to explicitly state the type for each statement.

I find it natural to classify the statement on the basis of the
predicate used.

</description>

> have a look at OIL (http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dieter/oil/oil.nutshell.pdf),
> you may find it interesting...

Yes. I am reading it now. Thank you.

... Have also looked at CyC upper ontology, wordnet, Prolog, predicate
logic, etc. And now the ph ontology. I love it all and can't wait to
use it. So I'm implemnting it in Perl. :-)


-- 
/ Jonas  -  http://paranormal.se/myself/en/index.html
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 10:21:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT