- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:19:31 +0100
- To: Heiko Gottschling <gottschl@in.tum.de>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Heiko Gottschling wrote: > On Monday 08 December 2003 14:06, jon@hackcraft.net wrote: > > >>I think that's okay, but why not have: >> >><owl:Class rdf:ID="Fruit"> >> <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> >> <owl:Class rdf:resource="#Apple" /> >> <owl:Class rdf:resource="#Banana" /> >> </owl:unionOf> >></owl:Class> > > > That brings me to another question - given the above definition of fruit, > would the following be valid (or even implied?): > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="Apple"> > <rdf:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Fruit" /> > </owl:Class> > > IAW, what is the relation between 'unionOf' and 'subClassOf'? If class A is defined as the union of classes B and C, then one can derive that B and C are subclasses of A (the class extensions of B and C must be subsets of the class extension of A). Similarly, if class A is defined as the intersection of classes B and C, then one can derive that A is a subclass of both B and C. > Would it be ok > to say that a class represents the union of its subclasses? No, unless explicitly defined otherwise, OWL subclass partitions may be incomplete and/or overlapping. Guus > > Heiko > -- Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718 E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 09:20:40 UTC