- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
- To: algermissen@acm.org, jalgermissen@topicmapping.com
- Cc: cjp39@cam.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, b.fallenstein@gmx.de
From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com> Subject: Re: Ways to restrict the properties a class may have? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:12:48 +0200 > > 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. Huh? Why would a system that checks to see if an inconsistency results from a update and rejects such updates not satisfy your requirements? For example, ex:numberOfWindows rdfs:domain ex:somethingWithWindows . ex:somethingWithWindows owl:disjointWith ex:employee . ex:Jan rdf:type ex:employee . ex:Jan numberOfWindows "5"^^xsd:int . is inconsistent (in OWL) and an OWL reasoner can detect this. > Basically, I want business rules (aka constraints) expressed as RDF. Again, I don't understand what is lacking. > I could of course develop my own vocabulary for this, but something > standardized would be better. > > Thanks anyway, > > Jan Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 16:54:11 UTC