- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:31:40 -0400
- To: lhart@grci.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Hart, Lewis" <lhart@grci.com>
Subject: Property's of Properties Question
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:07:47 -0400
> A simple question, with hopefully a simple answer. Is it possible to place a
> restriction on the property of a property in DAML[+OIL]?
No. At least I don't think so. Certainly not in general.
> What I would like to say, for example is:
>
> <daml:ObjectProperty rdf:ID='Foo'>
> <daml:subPropertyOf>
> <daml:Restriction>
> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource='#Bar'/>
> <daml:toProperty rdf:resource='#Baz'/>
> </daml:Restriction>
> </daml:subPropertyOf>
> </daml:ObjectProperty rdf:ID='Foo'>
>
> Except for the fact that daml:Restriction is a daml:Class and
> daml:toProperty doesn't exist, this would be fine.
If you have to use except, it isn't DAML+OIL. :-)
daml:Restriction forms a daml:Class, which is not really suitable as the
superproperty of a property.
All that said, RDF allows entities to be both classes and properties, so
what you are doing above is to
1/ create an unnamed class with a malformed restriction, which means that
there will be no semantic constraints for the class
2/ assert that Foo is a subproperty of the property that has the same
identity as the class
So you have said roughly the same thing as
<daml:ObjectProperty rdf:ID='Foo'>
<daml:subPropertyOf>
<rdf:Property />
</daml:subPropertyOf>
</daml:ObjectProperty rdf:ID='Foo'>
as far as DAML+OIL is concerned.
> Thanks - Lewis
I don't think that you can do what you want. However, if you give a
concrete example, I would be able to tell for sure.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Class of '72, GRCI
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 16:32:08 UTC