- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.o.se>
- Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 21:09:25 +0100
- To: martin <martin@csi.forth.gr>, RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
martin wrote: > > Hence a declaration of a property instance should refer to the direction > of instantiation in the one or the other way. Inverse use could be > indicated > > - by an RDFS statement identifying two properties as inverse of each > other > and using the respective property, > - or by a syntactic element declaring a property instantiation as > inverse use, > - or by declaring a property instance explicitly from the domain > instance to the range instance > in a descripription of the range instance, > - or by using one of a tuple of two names per property, > > where I like the last more than the first. The property name is not to be used in a presentation of the relation. That is what the label property does. All property instances could have a label. Or two... Lets create two Property classes that is subPropertyOf rdfs:label. You could call them 'rel' and 'rev'. That could be used by properties like 'parent': parent --rdf:type--> rdfs:Property parent --rel--> 'parent' parent --rev--> 'child' rel --rdf:type--> rdfs:Property rel --rdfs:subPropertyOf--> rdfs:label Programs that doesn't know about the meaning of rel/rev would be confused by the two labels, but it would know that they are lables, and maby present both. -- / Jonas - http://paranormal.o.se/myself/cv/index.html
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2000 15:07:24 UTC