Re: Constraining Collections?

A good point.

In fact,   neither rdfs:member nor rdf:_nn (and rdf:Seq) are within OWL DL.

In other words, these vocabulary have no formal definitions and meanings in OWL DL.

Most RDF(S) vocabulary cannot be used within OWL DL. See the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax document [OWL S&AS] for details.  (As pointed out in Section "8.2 OWL DL" , see  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/)

BTW, An Index of Vocabulary (Informative) is given in OWL S&AS.



Yuzhong Qu


> 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 Tuesday, 22 March 2005 13:05:08 UTC