- From: Pedro Assis in Oporto <passis@dee.isep.ipp.pt>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:46:19 +0100 (WEST)
- To: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308011938210.31220-200000@douro.dee.isep.ipp.pt>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Jon Hanna wrote: > > > > <cims:qualifierFlavor> <rdfs:subProperty> <cims:NamedElement> . > > > Entails that both <cims:qualifierFlavor> and <cims:NamedElement> are > > > properties, and as such it is possible to say <A> > > <cims:NamedElement> <B>. > > > > Yes, and that is a problem. In my view this is wrong as the NamedElement > > is "conceptual" or restriction (if you prefer), i.e. it states that all > > CIM elements must be named. > > I don't think it's a problem. It's still possible to say that > <cims:qualifierFlavor> <rdf:type> <cims:NamedElement>. > And similarly for its range and domain. Further subPropertys of > qualifierFlavor will have ranges and domains that are the same or compatible > with qualifierFlavor, so they would inherit the restriction that those must > be NamedElements. > > So it can still be entirely rooted in NamedElement if that's what you > desire. > Hi, Please find enclosed a proposal (CimMetaSchema2Rdf.rdf, text file) for the RDF description of the DMTF CIM (Common Information Model) [1]. This work follows the CIM specification v2.2 described in [2]. Comments are welcome. [1] http://www.dmtf.org/standards/standard_cim.php [2] http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/CIM/DSP0004.pdf -- Pedro passis@dee.isep.ipp.pt | Tel. +351 22 8340500 Ext. 1712
Attachments
- TEXT/PLAIN attachment: CimMetaSchema2Rdf.rdf
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 14:46:36 UTC