- From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:36:00 -0800
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> note: this assumes we want this to be an arbitrary string. > Alternatively, we could make it have some logic attached and say it > has to be > owl:oneOf (Lite DL Full) I think it's important to enumerate the values in machine-readable form, using instances (preferably) or XML Schema. I don't think the set of values needs to be closed (i.e. we can use an allValuesFrom Restriction instead of a oneOf). I do prefer the alternative approach of subclassing owl:Ontology [1], in part because it requires less language vocabulary (3 subclasses vs. 3 instances, 1 Class, 1 property, and 1 Restriction). Mike [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0147.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 12:36:40 UTC