RE: question about list and range of property

Hi,

 

This issue has been raised in the past and sadly has not been addressed
by OWL (except saying that OWL Full).

I think this use case is coming so often when modeling information, that
I think it should be in DL or built in RDF model, not in OWL Full. 

 

http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-constraining-containers

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2004Feb/0012.
html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2004Feb/0026.html

 

This change should be done for all the container types
(Bag/Alt/Seq/List). 

 

Best regards

 

Stephane Fellah

Web Chief Architect

 

PCI Geomatics

490, Boulevard St Joseph

Hull, Quebec

Canada J8Y 3Y7

Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223

Fax 1 819 770 0098

Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com <http://www.pcigeomatics.com/>


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shengping Liu [mailto:lsp@is.pku.edu.cn] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:20 PM
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: question about list and range of property

 

Hi,

  If in my RDF Schema,  the range of property knows is Person, i.e.,
<knows, rdfs:range Person>

then if some one knows many persons, can I write this in RDF?

<Person rdf:ID="P1">

<knows parseType="collection"> 

       <Person rdf:resource="#P2">

       <Person rdf:resource="#P3">

    </knows>

</Person>

 

is this RDF file validated against the RDF Schema?

 

1)       If true: by the semantics of rdfs:range , an instance of
rdf:List  would be  a Person, seems error; 

2)       If false:  then I must define the range of property "knows" is
rdf:List, but I can't constrict the list 

that only contains instances of  Person, and this definition would be
contrary to the intuition 

and make RDF data aggregation difficult. 

 

What is your idea? Thanks!

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  

Shengping Liu

Department of Information Science, Peking University, China.

 

Phone: 86-10-62757175

Mail:  lsp@is.pku.edu.cn