- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:37:14 +0000
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: "Mikhail Khlopotov <mik" <mik@chel.com.ru>, www-rdf-logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
(still brainstorming on RDF logic, not formally responding to Mikail's comment) > > If I understand it right, then for instance, > given following facts > > :worksFor :transitiveOver :consistsOf. > :aCompany :consistsOf :rAndD. > :rAndD :consistsOf :gSw. > :gSw :consistsOf :gSwBe. > :mk :worksFor :gSwBe. > let's try and do this in OWL Full ... :aCompany :consistsOf :rAndD. :rAndD :consistsOf :gSw. :gSw :consistsOf :gSwBe. :mk :worksFor :gSwBe. :consistsOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf . :worksFor rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type . :worksFor rdfs:range :WorkArea . :worksFor rdfs:domain :Worker . :consistsOf rdfs:domain :WorkArea . :consistsOf rdfs:range :WorkArea . (hmmm :consistsOf is not a good name for my variant of this concept) from which I can get as far as :mk rdf:type :rAndD but I need a 'property restriction' to say that an rdf:type relationship between a :Worker and a :WorkArea is a :worksFor relationship. But I guess using the built-in transitive over relationship between rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf is sort of cheating ... I wonder whether some of the work of rules could be addressed differently by making OWL Full even bigger ... rules is probably a better idea. Jeremy
Received on Sunday, 4 January 2004 17:42:39 UTC