W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

Re: WSDL WG request for adding multiple version extensibility into Schema 1.1

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
Message-ID: <20040215124315.H19674@www.markbaker.ca>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC