- From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:15:48 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: algermissen@acm.org, cjp39@cam.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, b.fallenstein@gmx.de
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > Huh? Why would a system that checks to see if an inconsistency results > from a update and rejects such updates not satisfy your requirements? > > For example, > > ex:numberOfWindows rdfs:domain ex:somethingWithWindows . > ex:somethingWithWindows owl:disjointWith ex:employee . > > ex:Jan rdf:type ex:employee . > > ex:Jan numberOfWindows "5"^^xsd:int . > > is inconsistent (in OWL) and an OWL reasoner can detect this. Ah, I now see it. Of course what I want implies that all classes are disjoint and saying ex:somethingWithWindows owl:disjointWith ex:employee . is not an additional 'constraint' (which I first thought). > Again, I don't understand what is lacking. Mostly familiarity with RDF/OWL on my side. I did not mean to say RDF/OWL lacked the semantics I want. Sorry. Thanks for the answer, that helps a lot. Jan > > > I could of course develop my own vocabulary for this, but something > > standardized would be better. > > > > Thanks anyway, > > > > Jan > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Bell Labs Research -- Jan Algermissen Consultant & Programmer http://www.jalgermissen.com
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 17:14:10 UTC