Re: Constraining Containers

> > technically, this won't work
> That is a matter of interpretation. My Schema editor 
works in that
> way. But I guess that many RDF parsers doesen't do it. 
There must be
> many sorts of inference rules in RDF.

well yes, it is a matter of interpretation,
so RDFS should not be ambiguous on the subject !

> One way to make all this explicit would be to create a 
schema.
> <awful schema> ;)
> ... But I would prefere to magicaly let the range always 
include the Container class.

sure !
that sounds like a sane solution.

> That could maby be done explicitly by constructing a 
new
> ConstraintProperty containerRange. So if you wanted the 
range of
> myprop to always be a sequence of literals, you could 
say:

<rdf:Property>
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/>
    <rdfs:containerRange rdf:resource="&rdf;Seq"/>
</rdf:Property>

I like this one too...
But would the absence of ocntainerRange property mean :
 - any type of container is allowed (consistent with 
rdfs:range semantic)
 - no type container is allowed (unconsistent, but how 
express that another way ?)
?

interesting issue, anyway,
since it allows
 - to explicitly declare properties admitting containers as 
their value
 - to force type of container's items with the rdf:range 
mechanism
this would be quite equivalent to OO techniques' mulivalued 
attributes.

  Pierre-Antoine

_______________________________________________________
Vendez tout... aux enchères - http://www.caraplazza.com