- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:09:44 -0600
- To: "Holmes III, William S" <william.s.holmes.iii@lmco.com>
- Cc: "'RDF Logic'" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
"Holmes III, William S" wrote: > > Hi all. > > In the property restriction section of the DAML+OIL walk through > (http://www.daml.org/2000/12/daml+oil-walkthru.html#restrictions), > it states that the following syntax is always used: Always? Does it really? No... perhaps this is a bit unclear: The syntax used here is a cliche, i.e., it is always used as shown, But it just says that this syntax always has the relvant semantics; not that the relevant semantics are always expressed with this syntax. > <restrictedBy> > <Restriction> > <onProperty rdf:resource="#parent"/> > <toClass rdf:resource="#Person"/> > </Restriction> > </restrictedBy> > > Using the "Person/parent" example, can't the same thing be said with the > following syntax using generated references? : > > <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Person"> > <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Animal"/> > <restrictedBy rdf:resource="#A1" /> > </rdfs:Class> > > <Restriction rdf:ID="A1"> > <onProperty rdf:resource="#parent"/> > <toClass rdf:resource="#Person"/> > </Restriction> Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable equivalent, as long as you don't mind making up the name A1. > The reason I ask is that even though this is less readable, I think it > would be easier to generate when processing a list of sorted triples. > > Thanks, > Bill H. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 17:17:27 UTC