- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:40:15 +0200
- To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I am not sure this proposal is monotonic, maybe I have misunderstood ... > > RDF Graphs > ========== > > Again, the obvious solution seems to be to combine some values from > and cardinality into a single mapping. Simple cardinality constraints > can then use the same mapping with the qualifying class set to > owl:Thing, while someValuesFrom can use the minValuesFrom mapping with > the cardinality set to 1. There are two obvious possibilities for the > mapping, i.e., attaching the min/max/blank to the valuesFrom property > name or to the cardinality property name. The first of these seems > more consistent with the above abstract syntax. > > E.g., minVaulesFrom using the valuesFrom property to indicate the "min": > > restriction(ID minValuesFrom(required min)) _:x rdf:type > owl:Restriction . > _:x rdf:type owl:Class . [opt] > _:x rdf:type rdfs:Class . [opt] > _:x owl:onProperty T(ID) . > _:x owl:minValuesFrom T(required) . > _:x owl:cardinality "min"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger . > > or using the cardinality property to indicate the "min": > > restriction(ID valuesFrom(required min)) _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction . > _:x rdf:type owl:Class . [opt] > _:x rdf:type rdfs:Class . [opt] > _:x owl:onProperty T(ID) . > _:x owl:valuesFrom T(required) . > _:x owl:minCardinality "min"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger . > > If we retain the current RDF graph syntax _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction . _:x owl:onProperty T(ID) . _:x owl:cardinality "min"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger . > > or using the cardinality property to indicate the "min": > _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction . _:x owl:onProperty T(ID) . _:x owl:minCardinality "min"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger . Then I believe that adding the extra triple as suggested is non-mon. Maybe the proposal is that the current (RDF graph) syntax for cardinality constraints is dropped and all such restrictions have to be qualified (e.g. to owl:Thing) - this would be monotonic, but a bit of a drag. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 05:40:43 UTC