Re: Conventions and top-level ontologies for RDF

Jonas Liljegren wrote:
> ** isAlso
> I have also found the need to say that objects of a certain type must
> also be of certain other type. That is: a instance with multiple
> classes. Not a class that inherits from many classes.
> isAlso  -  A resource of this type must also be a of that other type
>     type rdfs:ConstraintProperty
>     domain rdfs:Class
>     range rdfs:Class

this is exactly the same :
suppose class A isAlso B
then any instance of A is an instance of B,
then A is *structurally* a subclass of B !

bringing in into pseudo logical rules, this is exactly the same :

I type B :- I type A, A subClassOf B
I type B :- I type A, A isAlso B

or did I misunderstood one of the properties meaning ?

> The purpose is to represent in an RDF Schema, the properties a
> specific satement can have.
> Implementation
> --------------
> StatementConstraint
>     subClassOf rdfs:ConstraintProperty
> statementPredicate
>     type StatementConstraint
>     domain rdfs:Statement
>     range rdf:predicate
> Illustration
> ------------
> intrest
>     type rdf:predicate
>     domain Person
>     range Topic
> IntrestStatement
>     subClassOf rdf:Statement
>     statemetPredicate intrest
> strength
>     type rdf:predicate
>     domain IntrestStatement
>     range FloatZeroToOneInclusive

your example is not valid :
IntrestStatement is not a statement : it is a class ;
therefore, the domain of statementPredicate is not Statement, but Class,
even if you intend to use it only on classes that are subclasses of the Statement class...

looks like you are trying to provide RDF statements with Descrition Logic features :
describing a class in terms of constraints upon its instances...

have a look at OIL (,
you may find it interesting...

--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 02:17:00 UTC