On Mar 19, 2004, at 10:26, Patrick Stickler wrote: > >> hence I suggest inverting that property making >> it >> >> swp:graphOfWarrant @@ change name >> a rdf:Property ; >> rdfs:comment "The subject is a warrant by which the object graph >> can >> be authenticated and >> its assertional status and asserting or originating >> authority determined." ; >> rdfs:range rdfg:Graph ; >> rdfs:domain swp:Warrant ; >> owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:int . @@ sic > > Looks OK to me. > > Though perhaps just swp:graph is enough, since the domain/range make > the rest clear. > > (I tend to prefer having predicates that closely match the range. I've > found that users grok an ontology much better when things line up > mnemmonically in that fashion) > >> Just to be pedantic, giving us: :G ( some:resource some:property some:value . [ a swp:Warrant ; swp:graph :G ; swp:assertingAuthority ex:Bob ; swp:signature "..."^^sig:PGPSignature . swp:certificate "..." . swp:certificationAuthority <http://www.certificates-R-us.com> . ] [ a swp:Warrant ; swp:graph :G ; swp:authority ex:Bill ; swp:signature "..."^^sig:X509Signature . ] [ a swp:Warrant ; swp:graph :G ; swp:assertingAuthority ex:Mary ; swp:signature "..."^^xyz:XYZSignature ; xyz:policy xyz:blargh . ] ) ... er... what to do about :G swp:warrant <http://www.foo.bar.com/us282uss82wsauia9whjrui.wnt> . ??? Oops! There go our external warrants! Then again, that might not be such a big deal... Or do we really have to constrain each warrant to a single graph in the swp: ontology itself -- since each warrant's signature is graph specific, there is simply no utility/means to have the same warrant authenticate two different graphs -- so perhaps the swp:warrant property is OK and the limitation to a single graph is enforced by the nature of the signature rather than by OWL semantics. Eh? Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.comReceived on Friday, 19 March 2004 03:37:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:25 UTC