- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:54:49 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I missed this ... Some examples of why we might want to reason about comments: 1: <rdf:Property rdf:about="&my;comment"> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;comment"/> <my:comment> I use this property to distinguish comments made by me from other rdfs:comments. </my:comment> </rdf:Property> 2: (In OWL Full) <owl:Class rdf:ID="someThings"> <rdfs:subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&rdfs;comment" /> <owl:hasValue> This thing is in the class someThings. </owl:hasValue> </owl:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </owl:Class> The first seems to be the whole point of having RDF(S) being able to talk about itself. User level extensions are permitted - if you don't like that work in OWL DL or a subset. The second is significant because we have dropped rdf:aboutEach and rdf:aboutEachPrefix. This shows how an rdf:aboutEach type scenario can be approached in OWL - put all the items we wish to discuss in a class and then use a restriction - in this case on rdfs:comment, to add a comment to every resource in that class. A true about each can be done in the following way in OWL Full: <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="⪚hasMember"> <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;member"/> </owl:ObjectProperty> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="⪚hasMember"/> <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#aContainer"/> <rdfs:subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&rdfs;comment" /> <owl:hasValue> This thing is in the container #aContainer. </owl:hasValue> </owl:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </owl:Restriction> I think we should be pointing Ian at XML comments ... They seem to do what he really wants. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 09:54:39 UTC