- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 11 Dec 2002 15:56:07 -0600
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
"Issue 5.9 - malformed D+O restrictions ACTION: Write-up a few sentences for the guide (Dan Connolly)" -- 7Nov http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0119.html Basically I want to make sure the relevant section of the guide... http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-guide-20021104/#PropertyRestrictions says to don't do this: [[[ Recall that malformed OWL restrictions are things like _:x owl:onProperty ex:pa . _:x owl:onProperty ex:pb . _:x owl:minCardinality xsd:integer"5" . _:x owl:allValuesFrom ex:ca . ]]] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0329.html <- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.9-Malformed-DAML-OIL-Restrictions Starting from the example there... -------- <owl:Class rdf:ID="Vintage"> <rdfs:subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasVintageYear"/> <owl:cardinality>1</owl:cardinality> </owl:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </owl:Class> -------- To make my point, we need to be talking about more than one property... so... We can give cardinalities to multiple properties: <owl:Class rdf:ID="Vintage"> <rdfs:subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasVintageYear"/> <owl:cardinality>1</owl:cardinality> </owl:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasExpiryYear"/> <owl:cardinality>1</owl:cardinality> </owl:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </owl:Class> This says that Vintage is a subclass of each of two restrictions: one that limits the cardinality of hasVintageYear to 1, and another that limits the cardinality of hasExpiryYear to 1. then here's the point: Note that this cannot be abbreviated as: <owl:Class rdf:ID="Vintage"> <rdfs:subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasVintageYear"/> <owl:cardinality>1</owl:cardinality> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasExpiryYear"/> <owl:cardinality>1</owl:cardinality> </owl:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> </owl:Class> i.e. do not try to combine multiple restrictions. The semantics are almost certainly not what you meant. Does that make sense, Mike and GUIDE folks? p.s. nit: "Here we define Burgundy wine to be dry wines." the word 'define' suggests that all dry wines are Burgundy; not so, since you used subClassOf. suggest: "Here we declare that all Burgundy wines are dry." -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 16:55:52 UTC