- From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:27:38 -0700
- To: "Turner, David" <davidt@hp.com>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
<snip/> >> So it was totally incorrect to use rdf:Alt, a subclass of >> rdfs:Container, as the predicate object (of a unionOf). > >Being picky, it's not *totally* incorrect: an rdf:Alt could also be an >rdfs:Class and therefore be the rdfs:range of something. But you almost >certainly don't want to do that. > Why wouldn't I want to do that? http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/mapping.html says that rdf:Alt, Seq & Bag are okay under the Class-Only Vocabulary. Maybe you know other reasons why I shouldn't create a class, say ex:Audience rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Bag or ex:Answers rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Seq or ex:Choices rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Alt <snip/> >Again, no, lists are collections, containers are containers. My turn to be picky... Containers, suggestively, have *list items* (smile). <snip/> >note that using a container immediately puts you into OWL Full, so a DL >reasoner will refuse to talk to you. Is this true for rdf:Alt, rdf:Seq, and rdf:Bag, or just for rdf:Container? The citation above focuses on the graphs for ontology definitions not instance documents, and it seems to say it's okay to use those 3 classes (but not their common superclass, rdf:Container) in ontologies and instance documents. (Interestingly the Disallowed Vocabulary includes references to rdf:List !) Thanks, John
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 22:27:03 UTC