- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 06:09:23 -0700
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On 07/18/2014 09:50 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2014-07-18 05:49-0700]
>> That seems truly bizarre.
>>
>> Does anyone know whether this is a desired behaviour?
>
> It was certainly intentional that one be able to specify or verify compliance with value sets. I understand that this a bit of an anathema to OWL but it's the sort of functionality we need to provide if we want RDF to be taken seriously in most industries. For example, a substantial fraction of medical informatics concearns with specification and enforcement of value sets.
>
>
>> peter
It is certainly not anathema to OWL to specify value sets. One can easily
construct OWL restrictions for value sets, like
all ex:property { ex:val1 ex:val2 }
A constraint interpretation of this construct would be that every value given
for ex:property has to be either ex:val1 or ex:val2. One can also require the
existence of a value.
peter
Received on Saturday, 19 July 2014 13:09:53 UTC