Having been there myself... the only caveat is that this requires OWL Full. AFAIK, OWL DL does not allow putting a restriction on a property defined in RDFS. And no, I have never found a way around that! It depends on your application whether this is a problem, though. Ivan Geoff Chappell wrote: > 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 > > > > -- Ivan Herman W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413 1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153; URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 12:40:25 UTC