- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:43:15 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 09:04:08AM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > Actually, thinking more about it now, the > > "name" example is, I think, an example of the kind of constraint that > > OWL/RDFS can't express (limits on container structure). > > No, the problem is that an OWL class definition can't (in most cases) > mandate the presence of information in a knowledge base (kb) or > document. But for data validation, that's exactly what you want to do. That's what I said! 8-O Substitute "container" for "knowledge base". It was after I sent my first message that I noticed it was a containment relationship being expressed rather than a property relationship. So with Person/age/name, you could say, using OWL restrictions, that a Person had exactly one age, and one or more names, and by virtue of it being RDF you automatically get the "wildcarding" on what other properties you might want to attach to Person. I can't see from what David wrote up that the WG necessarily needs only to describe containment relationships. If that's the case, then clearly RDF/OWL can't play much of a role. But if it's not ... Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2004 12:42:59 UTC