W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2003

Re: typed containers in RDFS: suggestions about the "long range" problem

From: Francesco CannistrÓ <fracan@inwind.it>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:19:49 +0200
Message-ID: <020501c302a1$ad2c7cf0$36971d97@Matrix>
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Brian,

You convinced me that, as far as the processor reads statements separatelly, when it reads a statement like {rdfs:member rdfs:range voc:Apple} it restricts the range  of rdfs:member  without considering its domain or binding directly this statement with the statement {rdfs:member rdfs:domain voc:BagOfApple}. so, the answer to my original question (whether the behaviour by me supposed added semanticis not covered by RDFS) is negative ... I don't not why I did not succeeded in seeing it before, it's qiute evident :-( 

I'm concerned that with ontology languages I can do many things. For example with OWL the long range problem could be approached as follows:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="BagOfApple">
   <rdfs:subClassOf >
      <owl:Restriction>
         <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="TheRDFS_Namespace#member" />
         <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Apple" />
      </owl:Restriction>
   </rdfs:subClassOf >
</owl:Class>

<rdfs:Property rdf:ID="listApples">
   <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#listApplesDOMAIN" />
   <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#BagOfApple" />
</rdfs:Property>

NOTE: in all cases it would be better to assert the constraint, rather than for rdfs:member, for each of rdf:_n, but it is not possible.

However I think the problem should be approached in core RDFS.

Tnx for attention.

Regards,

Francesco
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 12:24:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:58 GMT