Re: Legal Persons

A good example of a significant challenge facing the global medium since 
becoming public anyway. While I am not an attorney, I am surrounded by them, 
and I can say with some confidence that for many purposes a corporation is 
not considered a person in the U.S., but rather a legal entity, so I believe 
it will require substantially more sub classification for most applications. 
However, as the question suggests, as soon as the data passes a border, it 
will likely have different meaning entirely. One of the fundamental 
challenges facing one discipline attempting to create standards that affect 
others, and why I consider it to be a mega-disciplinary field. .02- MM, 
Kyield

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
To: "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 12:04 PM
Subject: Legal Persons


>
> A Person in US legal contexts is either a Human or a Corporation; every 
> Human is
> a Person, and every Corporation is a Person.
>
> Is the following construct valid? Will or should reasoners be troubled by
> <rdf:Alt> within a <rdfs:range>, and can or should <rdf:Alt> be used 
> within an
> <owl:Restriction>?
>
> <owl:Class rdf:about="#LegalPerson">
>     <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about='#Parent'>
>        <rdfs:range>
>   <rdf:Alt>
>        <li><owl:Class rdf:about="#Human"/></li>
>        <li><owl:Class rdf:about="#Corporation"/></li>
>   </rdf:Alt>
>        </rdfs:range>
>     </owl:ObjectProperty>
>     <owl:subClassOf>
>          <owl:Restriction>
>             <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#Parent"/>
>             <owl:maxCardinality rdf:value='1'/>
>          </owl:Restriction>
>     </owl:subClassOf>
> </owl:Class>
> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Human">
>     <owl:subClassOf rdf:resource="#LegalPerson"/>
>     <owl:subClassOf>
>          <owl:Restriction>
>             <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#Parent"/>
>             <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:about="#Human"/>
>          </owl:Restriction>
>     </owl:subClassOf>
>     <owl:subClassOf>
>          <owl:Restriction>
>             <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#Parent"/>
>             <owl:maxCardinality rdf:value='2'/>
>          </owl:Restriction>
>     </owl:subClassOf>
> </owl:Class>
> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Corporation">
>     <owl:subClassOf rdf:resource="#LegalPerson"/>
>     <owl:subClassOf>
>          <owl:Restriction>
>             <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#Parent"/>
>             <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:about="#Corporation"/>
>          </owl:Restriction>
>     </owl:subClassOf>
>     <owl:subClassOf>
>          <owl:Restriction>
>             <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#Parent"/>
>             <owl:maxCardinality rdf:value='1'/>
>          </owl:Restriction>
>     </owl:subClassOf>
> </owl:Class>
>
> I haven't found examples of this sort in the docs. I understand that an
> <rdfs:range> is nothing more than
>     <!-- alternative specification for rdfs:range-->
>     <owl:subClassOf>
>          <owl:Restriction>
>             <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#Parent"/>
>             <owl:allValuesFrom>
>   <rdf:Alt>
>        <li><owl:Class rdf:about="#Human"/></li>
>        <li><owl:Class rdf:about="#Corporation"/></li>
>   </rdf:Alt>
>             </owl:allValuesFrom>
>          </owl:Restriction>
>       </owl:subClassOf>
>
> Maybe there is a better way to model this? Maybe I should be asking this 
> in
> another forum? Thanks for any comments,
> John McClure
>
>

Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 19:23:31 UTC