- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:09:29 +0000
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, public-hydra@w3.org
HI Gregg, > foaf:Person rdfs:subClassOf owl:Restriction [ owl:onProperty foaf:familyName; owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:unsignedInteger ] . > > This certainly makes the presence of familyName required, although it also has the effect of making it required on all subclasses of foaf:Person I believe. The problem is that this changes the foaf:Person class; you don't want to do that. > Other properties may use owl:minCardinality instead, but that wouldn't make much sense for a family name. Some people do have multiple family names (in different languages). But in general, it doesn't seem right to constrain an entire (cross-application) class for specific application functionality. Best, Ruben
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 09:10:06 UTC