- From: Matt Halstead <matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 19:14:21 +1200
- To: <www-rdf-interest@frink.w3.org>
I am beginning to confuse myself with the subClass relationships in DAML+OIL. The example follows : Class A subClassOf hasObject X 1* ( means property hasObject hasClass X with cardinality 1 or more) Class B subClassOf A (the problem - do I really need this?) subClassOf hasObject Y 1= subClassOf hasObject Z 1* Class X Class Y subClassOf X Class Z subClassOf X What I am trying to do Class A has a property hasObject that can be one or more objects of Class X. Now I want to make a more specialized form of Class A called Class B that is a subclass of A, but has the restrictions that it needs exactly one object of Class Y and at least 1 or more objects of Class Z. Class Y and Z are more specialized forms of Class X. The problem I am having is the subClassOf A part in Class B. I want to say that this is a more specialized form of Class A, so subClass of A seems appropriate, but I don't want to inherit the property hasObject X 1* since I am separating this out into hasObject properties of the more specialized Y and Z. If I take away the subClass of A restriction of Class B then I can still look at it and say members of Class B are certainly members of Class A. But now I seem to have lost the explicit feeling that subClass of A gave, especially when using an editor such as OilEd. I haven't considered sameClassAs and the toClass and hasClass restrictions just yet as I feel I need to resolve some of my thinking about class membership first. I guess assume the above are hasClass restrictions for now. I get the feeling I am either interpreting things incorrectly, or not providing enough structures to get the meaning I want. My weakness is that Class B simply feels like a subset of Class A. Any suggestions? regards Matt
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 03:15:54 UTC