Thanks for your advice. The QCR approach we currently use for the hasPart relationship which is indeed very flexible without constraining hasPart itself as such.
The only issue I have with restriction: is it really the same? Whe I say the domain for property y is X, I say also that it is not a property for any other class. Via restrictions I would have to add a maxcard=0 for any other class wouldn't I? (since the default is uncostrained..) Ch/Michel TNO.NL Michel Böhms Consultant Building Innovation TNO Built Environment and Geosciences Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6 | PO Box 49 2600 AA | Delft | The Netherlands Tel +31 15 2763107 E-mail [email protected] Web http://www.linkedin.com/in/michelbohms Skype name michelbohms Disclaimer -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Irene Polikoff Sent: donderdag 7 januari 2010 18:02 To: [email protected] Cc: Bonsma, P. (Peter) Subject: RE: [tbc-users] multiple domains? I second the restriction recommendation. Restrictions are local to a class as opposed to being global - as domains and ranges are. They are also open ended. You can keep on adding new restrictions without impacting what was stated before. With unions, you can't simply add new statements, you have to retract the existing one. This means they impact modularity and you are likely to have problems merging two models which are using the same property. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Holger Knublauch Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 3:44 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bonsma, P. (Peter) Subject: Re: [tbc-users] multiple domains? On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > Ok, what we will do in our owl-generation: > - if range is different: change propertyname (make it globally unique) > - if range is the same: merge domains via union > > Guess this is the way to handle it? > (we are coming from languages that define properties as secondary > concept not as prime concepts on the same level as classes so we have to adapt a bit...) Yes this should work. We had the same problems several times when attempting to convert UML or XML models to RDF/OWL. An alternative to using rdfs:domains, is to define owl:allValuesFrom restrictions (or cardinality restrictions + range). This may make your data structures easier to manage, and is another way of "attaching" a property to a class. Holger 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.
