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 17:21:36 -0500
Message-ID: <003a01c2cd64$f2b02910$7ddac040@RHOADS03>
To: "Stephen K. Rhoads" <rhoads@thrupoint.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> Also, can you elaborate on the "Union" option.  Do you mean to say that I
> create a class as the union of two or more other classes?  For example,
> "Nameable" is the union of "Person" and "ContentProvider".  How is that
any
> different from making "Person" and "ContentProvider" subclasses of
> "Nameable"?

Or wait.  Maybe I just answered my own question.

I create an *anonymous* class which is composed of the unionOf "Person" and
"ContentProvider" and assign this class as the domain of the property.
Something like this:

<owl:DataTypeProperty rdf:ID="name">
   <rdfs:domain>
      <owl:Class>
         <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
            <owl:Class rdf:about="#Person">
            <owl:Class rdf:about="#ContentProvider">
         </owl:unionOf>
   </rdfs:domain>
</owl:DataTypeProperty>

That way I don't have to define and explain a contrived name.  This bit just
lurks in the schema and serves to validate instance data.

(P.S. I know this runs contrary to the spirit of the SemanticWeb, but I
really want to create a "self-contained" ontology so that creators of
Content Management Systems can implement the ontology without needing to
become experts in RDF/OWL at this early stage.)
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 17:23:02 GMT

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