In ECM, the type of an object is defined effectively from its CModel. One
can validate the type of the target of a relationship, the typing being
specified by the hasModel relationship.
Is it possible to do any additional type validation; eg if I want to enforce
that all objects "belonging" to the CModel must assert an rdf:type
relationship?
I've tried adding an owl:Restriction on the rdf:type relationship using
owl:hasValue to specify the value of the target (rather than its class) -
but this doesn't look as if it is implemented.
I've also tried using an owl:Restriction on a hasMember relationship;
instead of specifying the target's CModel class I used a value that the
target is itself asserting using rdf:type, but it doesn't look like this is
tested for.
So a question, is ECM relationships validation restricted to:
1) checking the cardinality of a relationship
2) checking the type of the target of a relationship where the type is
specified using hasModel
Is there anything one can do for enforcing rdf:type assertions?
(Though I realise in practice, with reasoning support, one would make a
statement about the CModel#class that it is eg a subtype, or owl:sameAs
etc).
Thanks
Seve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Optimization Self Assessment
Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and
improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization
Self Assessment. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/
_______________________________________________
Fedora-commons-users mailing list
Fedora-commons-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-users
