From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 12/26/00
On December 25, Frank van Harmelen writes:
>
> Dear joint-everybody,
>
> While working on the DAML+OIL annotated example (aka the "walkthru"), I noticed the following point. I would be interested in your opinion:
>
> One place where DAML+OIL annotations might live is inside .html files. We would want browsers to be undisturbed by the DAML+OIL annotations (ie, display nothing of these annotations). I believe this is called "avoiding exposed content" in the RDF M&S spec. I understand that RDF was explicitly designed to make this possible (see section 7.7 of http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/).
>
> Our current DAML+OIL syntax does very well in this respect. Besides some semantics-less tags like <versionInfo> and <comment>, all of DAML+OIL avoids exposed contents, WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF CARDINALITY CONSTRAINTS! An expression like
>
> <restrictedBy>
> <Restriction>
> <onProperty rdf:resource="#father"/>
> <cardinality>1</cardinality>
> </Restriction>
> </restrictedBy>
Good point. There are many abbreviated forms of RDF, some of which seem
to do the trick. How about:
<restrictedBy>
<Restriction>
<onProperty rdf:resource="#father"/>
<cardinality rdfs:Literal="1">
</Restriction>
</restrictedBy>
or:
<restrictedBy>
<Restriction
onProperty rdf:resource="#father"
cardinality="1"/>
</restrictedBy>
No doubt one of our RDF experts can confirm.
Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST