- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:36:00 +0200
- To: public-powderwg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <486CD5C0.6030407@w3.org>
Comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20080630/ Looking at examples 2.2 and 2.3 and the way it is translated into POWDER-S: the translation is an intersection of restrictions: <owl:Class rdf:nodeID="descriptorset_1"> 27 <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> 28 <owl:Restriction> 29 <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://example.org/vocab#color" /> 30 <owl:hasValue>red</owl:hasValue> 31 </owl:Restriction> 32 <owl:Restriction> 33 <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://example.org/vocab#shape" /> 34 <owl:hasValue>square</owl:hasValue> 35 </owl:Restriction> 36 </owl:intersectionOf> 37 <dc:description>Everything on example.org is red and square</dc:description> 38 <foaf:depiction rdf:resource="http://example.org/icon.png" /> 39 </owl:Class> what this means, strictly speaking, is that if I take an instance of that class, the 'color' or 'shape' properties will take that specified values _if they are applied_. However, it does _not_ say that this property _is_ applied on those instances. If the intention of the spec is to say 'this and this property _is_ applied and it has this and this value', then an extra cardinality restriction for each of those properties might be necessary... It is up to the group to decide what the intention is, though. Cheers Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 13:36:32 UTC