W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2005

RE: Mustangs vs myMustang

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:59:55 +0200
Message-Id: <200510170600.j9H5xx78018345@vmx100.multikabel.net>
To: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "'Paap, Onno'" <onno.paap@ezzysurf.com>, <semantic-web@w3c.org>, <semantic-web-request@w3.org>

Hi Jos,


Your last sentence: " That is indeed *possible* in RDF and OWL Full"  is
rather alarming to me as being seen by you as substandard. 

If this were to comply with the constraints of OWL DL, how should I model
it? (your assumption about the base URI was correct).


-----Original Message-----
From: jos.deroo@agfa.com [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:32 PM
To: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
Cc: 'Hans Teijgeler'; 'Sullivan, Jan'; 'West, Matthew R SIPC-OFD/321'; Paap,
Onno; semantic-web@w3c.org; semantic-web-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mustangs vs myMustang

> From the beginning I have struggled with chapter 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide. 
So let me ask this question: If I have:
>    <owl:Thing rdf:ID="Mustang"/> 
>    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Mustang">
>        <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/library#Mustang"/> 
>    </owl:Thing>
> then does this mean that I have here the class extension?

What is the base URI for that rdf:ID="Mustang"?
If it is http://www.example.org/library#

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"

    <owl:Thing rdf:ID="Mustang"/> 
    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Mustang">
        <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/library#Mustang"/> 


is saying that

:Mustang rdf:type :Mustang.

or saying that :Mustang is in it's own extension
(and :myMustang is also in that extension)
That is indeed *possible* in RDF and OWL Full

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 06:03:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:54 UTC