- From: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:30:32 +0000
- To: james.lapalme@videotron.ca
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Sunday 02 December 2007, james.lapalme@videotron.ca wrote: > No what I intented was > > class A : > > has only 1 role1 associations > has only 2 role2 associations > exactly one of the role1 associations is to an instance of class B > exactly one of the role2 associations is to an instance of class C > exactly one of the role2 associations is to an instance of class D OK, then you need something more like: A = role1 exactly 1 Thing role2 exactly 2 Thing role1 exactly 1 B role2 exactly 1 C role2 exactly 1 D Matthew > > thanks, > > james > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> > Date: Saturday, December 1, 2007 6:31 pm > Subject: Re: OWL 1.1... does this make sense > To: james.lapalme@videotron.ca > Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org > > > Hi James, > > > > On Friday 30 November 2007, james.lapalme@videotron.ca wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm using an implementation of OWL 1.1 in TopBraid Composer. > > > Does the folowwing make sense : > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by making sense. Are you asking if > > these statements > > are logically consistent, or are you asking a deeper question? > > > > > I have defined the following classes : > > > > > > Class A > > > Class B > > > Class C > > > Class D > > > > > > I have defined the following roles (properties) : > > > > > > role1 > > > role2 > > > > > > This the following make sense : > > > > > > Class is defined by > > > > > > role1 exacly 1 Class B > > > role2 exactly 1 Class C > > > role2 exactly 1 Class D > > > > So, this should mean that every instance of your class has: > > > > any number of role1 associations > > any number of role2 associations > > exactly one of the role1 associations is to an instance of class B > > exactly one of the role2 associations is to an instance of class C > > exactly one of the role3 associations is to an instance of class D > > > > Is that what you intended? > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > James > > > > Matthew
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2007 12:30:46 UTC