- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:20:17 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 2/9/2015 10:16, Michel Dumontier wrote: > Holger, > >> there is zero practical difference between >> the following options: >> >> ex:Class >> a owl:Class ; >> rdfs:subClassOf [ >> a owl:Restriction ; >> owl:onProperty ex:property ; >> owl:minCardinality 1 ; >> ] . >> >> ex:Class >> a owl:Class ; >> ldom:property [ >> a ldom:PropertyConstraint ; >> ldom:predicate ex:property ; >> ldom:minCount 1 ; >> ] . >> >> Holger > is it not the case that (1) *entails* that every instance of > ex:Class has at least one relation ex:property to some unidentified > object of any type, whereas (2) should be used to check those > instances of ex:Class have at least one ex:property to one concrete > object? will the shape in (2) trivially validate on an OWL axiom in > (1)? Yes that is correct. The OWL restriction can be used for entailment, while the LDOM property can be used for constraints. The discussion here is about whether those ldom:properties can be attached to classes or not. And in my judgement it is perfectly valid to attach these closed-world constraints to classes just like the open-world OWL restrictions are. The class provides a natural way of organizing such constraints. Hope this clarifies it. Holger
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 00:20:57 UTC