- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:40:43 +0100
- To: algermissen@acm.org, "www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
It seems to me that using an inference engine of some kind, all that needs to be added is some resource that represents a violation. Then inference rules might be used to infer the presence of such in some given RDF. (Maybe that's what Pychinko's Report(), mentioned by Kendall Clark, is meant to achieve?) I don't think it's in the spirit of RDF to close off the properties that can be applied to a resource... it seems like saying that one knows all there is to be known about some object. Unrecognized properties can (should) be ignored. #g -- At 21:35 28/10/04 +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote: >Hi, > >I know about the various ways to constrain individual properties, but >I seem to be unable to find out if there is a standard way of restricting >the set of properties instances of a given class may 'have'. >(Like relational tables form classes by grouping attributes) > >Is there an RDF vocabulary for this purpose? > >Hmm....what about owl:minCardinality (and owl:maxCardinality)? Does >a missing cardinality of a property for a class imply the cardinality of zero? >Or would relying on that be too application specific? > >Thanks for any help on this. > >Jan > > >-- >Jan Algermissen >Consultant & Programmer >http://www.jalgermissen.com ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 15:54:19 UTC