Ok, thanks for following up on this Holger. I'll try it out.
Cheers,
Rinke
On Mar 17, 7:08 pm, Holger Knublauch hol...@topquadrant.com wrote:
Hi Rinke,
I have double-checked with the Jena developers, and support for @base
is a missing feature of Jena (2.5.7). They are migrating to a new
Hello,
I would like to specify an aggregation- relation between two concepts.
One approach could be to create an object property consists_of and
create a restriction between the concepts, but for me this solution is
nonsatisfying. Is there a standard construct specified within OWL to
express
Dear Mathias,
Why is this not satisfying? (ie hasParts and with QCR constraints for
instance) ?
Check out TBC-pattern with parent/child/index (see earlier mails; like
mine on order)
Cheers Michel
-Original Message-
From: topbraid-composer-users@googlegroups.com
Dear Michel,
thanks for your comment. Of course defining a relation has_part is
working. The problem is, that I (or anyone with the same aggregation
context) must define this for myself.
Thus, my question is targeted on a standard/ standard pattern in RDF/
OWL that defines this aggregation,
Yes, this convention has been introduced to make some functions more
convenient, reducing the number of arguments. For example, this
approach allows you to define a cardinality function that only needs
the property as argument - the subject would be ?this.
Keep in mind though that calling
