- 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