- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:13:34 -0500
- To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Brian Manley'" <manleyr@telcordia.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
Yeah, that seems cleaner (and less likely to freak out dls?).
rss:Channel rdfs:subClassOf
[ a owl:Restriction;
owl:onProperty rss:items;
owl:allValuesFrom
[rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Seq,
[a owl:Restriction;
owl:onProperty rdfs:member;
owl:allValuesFrom rss:item
]
]
].
- Geoff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Dan Brickley
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:00 PM
> To: Geoff Chappell
> Cc: 'Brian Manley'; semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Constraining Collections?
>
>
> Quick side thought: does having rdfs:member help at all?
> It is superproperty of _1 _2 etc...
>
> Or perhaps OWL is a little class-centric in design, with
> fewer property-oriented facilities?
>
> Dan
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 17:14:23 UTC