- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 10:35:17 -0800
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 2/5/15 8:27 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Is there a particular reason why 2) can’t be done by subclassing the
> minimally constrained ontology, assuming shapes can be associated
> with classes?
I may be reading this wrong... but here are some actual examples:
dcterms:title (no domain, no range)
has subproperty
rdau:workTitle (no domain, no range)
has subproperty
rdaw:worktitle (domain: rda:Work)
rdau:titleProper (no domain, no range)
has subproperty
rdam:titleProper (domain: rda:Manifestation)
bf:title (domain bf:Title)
has subproperty
bf:keyTitle, bf:parallelTitle, bf:abbreviatedTitle (all with domain
bf:Title)
A similar situation in the Europeana ontology has this test attached:
if there is both a subProperty and its superProperty in a single
graph, act only the superProperty (and all its triples).
The least specific property is the most super property. Is that what you
meant?
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 18:35:48 UTC