- 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>
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 prose. > 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 @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 11:43:46 UTC