Hey Milorad, not 100% sure but could this thread be relevant? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2012Jul/0082.html
Martynas graphity.org On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Milorad Tosic <mbto...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I may missed something fundamental about OWL, so would someone point me to > what I'm missing. The question is as follows: > > Restrictions are powerful and commonly used constructs in OWL. All the > examples that I am aware of define unnamed class of type owl:Restriction and > then do either owl:equivalentClass or rdfs:subClassOf. For example [1]: > > q:HighPriorityItem owl:equivalentClass > [a owl:Restriction; > owl:onProperty q:hasPriority; > owl:hasValue q:High]. > > Would it make any difference if we used named instead of unnamed class? As in > the next corresponding example: > > q:HighPriorityItem owl:equivalentClass q:hasPriorityHigh. > q:hasPriorityHigh a owl:Class; > > a owl:Restriction; > owl:onProperty q:hasPriority; > owl:hasValue q:High. > > Thanks, > Milorad > > > [1] Dean Allemang, Jim Hendler "Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist: > Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL", Second edition, Morgan Kaufmann > Publishers
