W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2006

RE: owl:onProperty with enumeration

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:41:36 +0100
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c61b6b$c020bf20$6c7ba8c0@hans>

Peter,

Thanks!
(the repeated nonNegativeInteger was not my input, but caused by the
software at W3C side.)

Regards,
Hans

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 14:37
To: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Re: owl:onProperty with enumeration


From: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Subject: RE: owl:onProperty with enumeration
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:14:46 +0100

> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for your response!
> 
> When you say: "The syntax here may not be exactly right" then you 
> invite my next question: What's wrong with it?

Well, I didn't have access to the appropriate documentation at the time, so
I wasn't exactly sure whether I got all the details correct.

> I *did* create an enumerated class "BlackWhiteRed":
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="BlackWhiteRed">
>     <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
>         <owl:Class rdf:about="#Black"/>
>         <owl:Class rdf:about="#White"/>
>         <owl:Class rdf:about="#Red"/>
>     </owl:unionOf>
> </owl:Class>
> 
> I *did* use that class in a Restriction:
> 
> <rdfs:subClassOf>
>     <owl:Restriction>
>         <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor"/>
>         <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#BlackWhiteRed"/>
>         <owl:maxCardinality rdf:datatype=" 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger
> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger>
> ">1</owl:maxCardinality>
>     </owl:Restriction>
> </rdfs:subClassOf>
> 
> so where is it "not exactly right"? Please enlighten me.

Well, this indeed may be exactly what you want, except for the repeated
nonNegativeInteger which I expect is not right.  The only (other)
differences that I can see between what you did and what I did was
maxCardinality vs cardinality and your subClassOf.  If you had problems
parsing your example, I would suspect that the subClassOf is the problem.

> Regards,
> Hans


peter
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 13:41:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:11 UTC