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

Re: Domain/Range Woes

From: Stephen K. Rhoads <rhoads@thrupoint.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:44:17 -0500
Message-ID: <002601c2cd5f$bda06d70$7ddac040@RHOADS03>
To: "Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Peter,

Can you elaborate on the last option -- "Use a more expressive logic such as
OWL that allows disjunction (in its DL form) or allows you to attach range
restrictions to classes rather than to predicates."  I don't see any
reference in the OWL Guide to disjunction.  Or did you mean "disjoint"
although I can't see how that would help.

How would I achieve this?  Create some kind of class extension and assign it
as the domain of the predicate?

--- Stephen

>
> > From: Stephen K. Rhoads [mailto:rhoads@thrupoint.net]
> > In particular, I find that I have many predicates
> > which apply equally to seemingly disparate types of classes.
>
> Could a user of your schema wish to apply your predicates to some other
> classes of which you have not yet thought?  If this is possible, range
> and domain constraints would seem inappropriate.
>
> > What are my options (short of copping out and using, for example,
> > "movieDirectedBy" / "programDirectedBy" or "personName" /
> > "providerName")?
>
> - Don't use domain/range constraints;
>
> - Use domain/range constraints on inherited superclasses;
>
> - Use a more expressive logic such as OWL that allows disjunction (in
> its DL form) or allows you to attach range restrictions to classes
> rather than to predicates.
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 16:45:46 GMT

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