- From: Stephen K. Rhoads <rhoads@thrupoint.net>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:44:17 -0500
- To: "Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Peter, Can you elaborate on the last option -- "Use a more expressive logic such as OWL that allows disjunction (in its DL form) or allows you to attach range restrictions to classes rather than to predicates." I don't see any reference in the OWL Guide to disjunction. Or did you mean "disjoint" although I can't see how that would help. How would I achieve this? Create some kind of class extension and assign it as the domain of the predicate? --- Stephen > > > From: Stephen K. Rhoads [mailto:rhoads@thrupoint.net] > > In particular, I find that I have many predicates > > which apply equally to seemingly disparate types of classes. > > Could a user of your schema wish to apply your predicates to some other > classes of which you have not yet thought? If this is possible, range > and domain constraints would seem inappropriate. > > > What are my options (short of copping out and using, for example, > > "movieDirectedBy" / "programDirectedBy" or "personName" / > > "providerName")? > > - Don't use domain/range constraints; > > - Use domain/range constraints on inherited superclasses; > > - Use a more expressive logic such as OWL that allows disjunction (in > its DL form) or allows you to attach range restrictions to classes > rather than to predicates. >
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 16:45:46 UTC