- From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:56:58 -0700
- To: "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
I'm uncomfortable with the answer given for axioms about instance property values -- the answer used a <Restriction> element which is mechanism for class definitions. I'm concerned about the impact of this approach on user-queries of a knowledge-base and also on its maintenance by developers Let's consider for a moment that one wants to say an instance 'a' has a property 'P' that has an exclusive range of values a-z, with the exception of value 'm' (and, being exclusive, of the endpoints). To me, that is a simple matter of <owl:Thing rdf:about="#a"> <P verb='has'> <Range> <Minimum verb='has' rdf:value='a'/> <Maximum verb='has' rdf:value='z'/> <Value verb='hasNot' rdf:value='a'/> <Value verb='hasNot' rdf:value='z'/> <Value verb='hasNot' rdf:value='m'/> </Range> </P> </owl:Thing> Would someone provide the OWL 1.1 equivalent coding (in XML)? I'm wondering if the values for P are spread across <rdf:type> and <P> element structures rather than packaged in a single element as shown above. Though feasible, using <rdf:type> elements to specify property values that an instance *does or doesn't have* seems strange from the perspective that it's hard to understand the actual significance of the extent of a class so obviously artificial. Thanks, John McClure
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 18:56:33 UTC