- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:37:46 -0500 (EST)
- To: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
If you want multiple values, then conjoin (and) multiple hasValues. Other methods are possible, but this the simplest. peter From: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> Subject: RE: hasValue with more than one outcome Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:21:14 +0100 > Peter, > > The W3C OWL Language Reference tells me that I can define a Restriction as > follow: > > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasParent" /> > <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Clinton" /> > </owl:Restriction> > > It also tells me that I can determine the cardinality: > > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasParent" /> > <owl:maxCardinality > rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">2</owl:maxCardinality> > </owl:Restriction> > > So, when I want to define, for the Class "Person", I can use: > > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasParent"/> > <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Father"/> > </owl:Restriction> > > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasParent"/> > <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Mother"/> > </owl:Restriction> > > When, as in this case, there are only two, I guess that I can create two > anonymous Classes, one for each, to define these constraints for any > individual person. > > But in other cases I may have a long list. So I was trying to find out how > to address that. For now I have chosen for an enumerated class and an > allValuesFrom construct. > > Regards, > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 14:40 > To: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl > Cc: semantic-web@w3.org > Subject: Re: hasValue with more than one outcome > > > From: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> > Subject: hasValue with more than one outcome > Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:34:42 +0100 > > > Hi, > > > > In http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#hasValue-def > > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#hasValue-def> > > I find: > > > > <owl:Restriction> > > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasParent" /> > > <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Clinton" /> > > </owl:Restriction> > > > > In order to make this complete can I state: > > > > <owl:Restriction> > > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasParent" /> > > <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Clinton" /> > > <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Hillary" /> > > </owl:Restriction> > > > > i.e. what to do when owl:hasValue has more than one possible outcome? > > In general malformed restrictions like the one above should be avoided. > They are definitely not legal in OWL DL, and often have very strange > meanings in OWL Full. > > > I hope someone can help me. > > Well, it is hard to determine exactly what you want to do here. > > > Regards, > > Hans > > peter
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 14:38:05 UTC