W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2004

Re: Modelling rdfs:range(s) in PRISM

From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:01:22 +0100
Message-Id: <A446D064-FC0E-11D8-BBE5-000A957D9564@reading.ac.uk>
Cc: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
To: "Hammond, Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>

One way could be to make the two things you're trying to union  
subclasses of something else, and mark that as the range.

:thingy a rdfs:Class .
rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf :thingy .
:AuthorityReference rdfs:subClassOf :thingy .
:category rdfs:range :thingy .

This, however, means that something marked as a category is a :thingy,  
and nothing more (because it's not defined as equivalent to a union).  
Because RDFS isn't for constraints, only for inferences, there's really  
no point in doing this. I would just leave the range blank, or specify  
it in OWL (as that would then be ignored by non-OWL engines).


On 1 Sep 2004, at 12:19, Hammond, Tony wrote:

> Hi:
> I seem to have a problem with modelling rdfs:ranges in the PRISM RDF  
> schema
> - see http://www.prismstandard.org/resources/prism.rdfs (and thanks to
> Victor at SchemaWeb for pointing this out).
> The PRISM spec
> (http://www.prismstandard.org/specifications/Prism1[1].2RFC.pdf)  
> defines a
> small number of parameter entities for use in content models, e.g.
> 	%AuthorityReference;
> which is a URI in a controlled vocab.
> Now for a given element, prism:category, say it defines a content  
> model of
> either
> 	rdf:resource=%AuthorityReference;  i.e. rdf:resource=URI
> if an %AuthorityReference; URI is available or if no  
> %AuthorityReference;
> URI is available then the prism:category element content is #PCDATA.
> I attempted to model this as
> <!-- "AuthorityReference" class -->
> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="AuthorityReference">
> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en-US">AuthorityReference</rdfs:label>
> <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en-US">Resource used for PRISM content models  
> with a
> parameter entity %AuthorityReference; whose value is a URI referring  
> to a
> term in a controlled vocabulary.</rdfs:comment>
> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#ResourceReference"/>
> </rdfs:Class>
> <!-- prism:category -->
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="category">
> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en-US">category</rdfs:label>
> <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en-US">The nature or genre of a resources
> intellectual content.</rdfs:comment>
> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource=""/>
> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#AuthorityReference"/>
> <rdfs:range
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema 
> -20000327#Literal"/>
> </rdf:Property>
> That is, I supplied two range elements - one for an  
> %AuthorityReference; URI
> and the other for #PCDATA. As Victor points out from the RDFS spec:
> 	"Where P has more than one rdfs:range property, then the resources
> denoted by the objects of triples with predicate P are instances of  
> all the
> classes stated by the rdfs:range properties.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_range"
> So looks like a property can have multiple ranges but they are AND'ed
> instead of OR'ed. (Oh he also pointed out that I'm using the old schema
> namespace - I'll upgrade that.) Question is, how do I model this  
> optional
> range constraint in RDFS without necessarily jumping up to OWL?
> Thanks,
> Tony
> Tony Hammond
> New Technology, Nature Publishing Group
> 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
> tel:+44-20-7843-4659
> mailto:t.hammond@nature.com
> *********************************************************************** 
> *********
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by  
> anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have  
> received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it  
> from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan  
> Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any  
> statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly  
> made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.  
> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its  
> agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in  
> this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan  
> the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on  
> behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of  
> e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in  
> England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office  
> Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
> *********************************************************************** 
> *********
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 12:02:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:51 UTC