On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 14:38, Ian Horrocks wrote: > > A minor point in comparison with some of the issues we are currently > wrestling with, but still... > > I find myself less and less satisfied with "oneOf" as the name given > to extensionally defined classes. Er... it's not a name given to any classes; it's a property that relates a class to a list of its members. :MyBrothers :oneOf (:Paul :Jon). i.e. <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="MyBrothers"> <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="Paul"/> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="Jon"/> </owl:oneOf> </rdfs:Class> > After all, the resulting class > contains all of the enumerated individuals, not just one of > them. EnumeratedClass, as per the abstract syntax, seems much better. I don't see how you can use a class name name like EnumeratedClass to relate a class to its members. How would this work in the exchange syntax? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 09:52:55 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:04:53 GMT