- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:35:21 +0100
- To: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Cc: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>, music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:07:25 +0200 Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net> wrote: > 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? I'm indifferent as to which you should use. Was merely pointing out that OWL allows you to set effective range and functional property requirements on rdf:value almost as easily as it allows you to do so on a custom property. > Your second statement (... owl:cardinality 1 ...) restricts the > existence of co:count. That means this property must exist for every > co:Counter instance. That seems sensible to me. The open world assumption means that even though a co:count *exists* for every co:Counter, it is not necessarily the case that every description of the co:Counter includes the co:count. For example, a cardinality restriction on a hypothetical foaf:bloodtype property for foaf:Persons would mean that every person has a blood type, but it doesn't mean that every RDF file mentioning a foaf:Person must provide the person's blood type. Even if you won't want to use owl:cardinality, there's always owl:maxCardinality. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:36:21 UTC