W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > November 2013

RE: representing hypermedia controls in RDF

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:43:14 +0100
To: "'Ruben Verborgh'" <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Cc: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <021301ceeb65$dc590990$950b1cb0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
ON Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:54 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> > I can't see how
> >
> >  </a> :myprop </b> .
> >
> > turns </b> into a hydra:Resource in that case using just RDFS
> > entailment. Could you help me out here?
> RDFS entailment alone won't do indeed.
> We need to describe hydra:Link in more depth with OWL:
>     hydra:Link rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty rdfs:range;
> owl:hasValue hydra:Resource ].
> Given the above and [1][2][3], the following:
>     :myProp a hydra:Link.
>     :a :myProp :b.
> results in
>     :myProp rdfs:range hydra:Resource.
>     :b a hydra:Resource.
> as tested with the EYE and cwm reasoners, which is what we want.
> Similar for rdfs:domain of course.

Yeah.. OWL restrictions allow this. Unfortunately very few people really
understand OWL (I don't think I know it very well myself). In this instance
for example, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use owl:equivalentClass
[...] instead of rdfs:subClassOf?

It would certainly make sense to describe this in terms of OWL (and I will
do so as soon as we decide whether owl:equivalentClass or rdfs:subClassOf is
more appropriate), but I think we should also explain this stuff in simple

> Again a confirmation of the fact that hydra:Link should be a subclass
> of rdf:Property.

Good.. that's what we currently have.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 11:43:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:40 UTC