- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:07:25 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>, music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Toby, Am 21.07.2010 13:48, schrieb Toby Inkster: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:56:05 +0200 > Bob Ferris<zazi@elbklang.net> wrote: > >> How can I make sure that the value of my counter concept is of the >> type xsd:Integer? > > co:Counter > rdfs:subClassOf [ > a owl:Restriction ; > owl:onProperty rdf:value ; > owl:allValuesFrom xsd:integer > ] ; > # and to say that it's a functional property... > rdfs:subClassOf [ > a owl:Restriction ; > owl:onProperty rdf:value ; > owl:cardinality 1 > ] . > co:count is already an owl:FunctionalProperty and the rdfs:range of this property is only xsd:Integer. Hence, there should be no other type possible, or? I think owl:someValuesFrom and owl:allValueFrom should be used, when there is a owl:unionOf range of a property that is in the domain of a concept. Your second statement (... owl:cardinality 1 ...) restricts the existence of co:count. That means this property must exist for every co:Counter instance. I thought also about adding this restriction to co:Counter, because co:count is the necessary value (That's why maybe also Vasiliy's thoughts rdf:value) of this concept. Without this restriction the range of co:count is currently [0..1]. Finally, what do you think should we use now: rdf:value and some restrictions on it for co:Counter or co:count as it is already defined + a cardinality restriction of 1 on co:Counter for co:count? Cheers, Bob [1] http://purl.org/ontology/co/counterontology.html#count
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:08:03 UTC