- From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:12:48 +0200
- To: Chris Purcell <cjp39@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: "www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, algermissen@acm.org, Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Chris Purcell wrote: > > > OTH, checking that an employee cannot have a numberOfWindows property > > is not a bad thing after all :-) > > [ex:numberOfWindows rdfs:domain ex:somethingWithWindows] > [ex:somethingWithWindows owl:disjointWith ex:employee] > > Is that reasonable? Hmm...not really. My point is that I want to develop a system that loads the constraints and rejects 'broken' updates. This is just like RDBMSs keep data from becoming 'incorrect' (according to the constraints). I want to avoid having to develop extra checking code. Basically, I want business rules (aka constraints) expressed as RDF. I could of course develop my own vocabulary for this, but something standardized would be better. Thanks anyway, Jan > > Cheers, > Chris Purcell -- Jan Algermissen Consultant & Programmer http://www.jalgermissen.com
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 14:10:55 UTC