The OWL syntax documents can be switched to display other syntaxes such as RDF/XML and Turtle as well. Find the corresponding buttons near the top of the documents.
Holger On Nov 4, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > > I forgot: if the manchester syntax stuff only works "at classes" and > not for separate global things...where do you think I can find extra > info on this? ... The current set of owl2 docs is with the functional > syntax quite unreadible for me (I see no concrete examples for the > RDF/XML case...). > > thx > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Holger > Knublauch > Sent: woensdag 4 november 2009 17:29 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [tbc-users] Re: userdefined datatypes > > > Hi Michel, > > as you may have seen, OWL 1.1 is no longer supported by TBC, instead > we > support all of OWL 2. > > In your case, I wonder why you even have the onDataRange to restrict > float, as there is no other constraint defined - you could just as > well > use xsd:float it seems. I think the correct way of specifying such a > global datatype is using rdfs:subClassOf. > > The other way of using those user-defined datatypes in OWL 2 is via > local restrictions at a class, using the OWL Manchester Syntax. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/ > > which will handle the low-level triples for you. > > Holger > > > On Nov 4, 2009, at 5:35 AM, Michel Bohms wrote: > >> >> Can someone tell me whether the current use of userdefined datatypes >> is still correct? I now use for instance: >> >> <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#indoorAirSpeedForClosingWindows"> >> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#OpenableWindowsControlSettings"/> >> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="AirSpeed"/> </owl:DatatypeProperty> >> >> <owl:DataRange rdf:ID="AirSpeed">aparte >> <owl11:onDataRange rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/ >> XMLSchema#float"/> >> </owl:DataRange> >> >> (split or combined) >> >> which works fine in TBC (owl11 being activated). >> >> In the new OWL2 specs it is however very difficult to see if this is >> still ok (because of all the functional specification syntax...). >> I guess also the owl11 has changed? >> >> thanks for feedback, >> Michel Bohms >>> > > > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at > http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
