- 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