W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2001

Re: DAML+OIL restriction question.

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:09:44 -0600
To: "Holmes III, William S" <william.s.holmes.iii@lmco.com>
Cc: "'RDF Logic'" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-id: <3A5A3AA8.2BB102A9@w3.org>
"Holmes III, William S" wrote:
> 
> Hi all.
> 
> In the property restriction section of the DAML+OIL walk through
> (http://www.daml.org/2000/12/daml+oil-walkthru.html#restrictions),
> it states that the following syntax is always used:

Always? Does it really? No... perhaps this is a bit unclear:

	The syntax used here is a cliche,
	i.e., it is always used as shown,

But it just says that this syntax always has the relvant
semantics; not that the relevant semantics are always
expressed with this syntax.

>   <restrictedBy>
>     <Restriction>
>       <onProperty rdf:resource="#parent"/>
>       <toClass rdf:resource="#Person"/>
>     </Restriction>
>   </restrictedBy>
> 
> Using the "Person/parent" example, can't the same thing be said with the
> following syntax using generated references? :
> 
> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Person">
>   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Animal"/>
>   <restrictedBy rdf:resource="#A1" />
> </rdfs:Class>
> 
> <Restriction rdf:ID="A1">
>   <onProperty rdf:resource="#parent"/>
>   <toClass rdf:resource="#Person"/>
> </Restriction>

Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable equivalent, as long as you
don't mind making up the name A1.

> The reason I ask is that even though this is less readable, I think it
> would be easier to generate when processing a list of sorted triples.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Bill H.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 17:17:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT