 |
Some generalized object types are not always a supertype. Sometimes the object type is just a placeholder and not perse a supertype. |
|
|
The Generalized OT should perhaps not be a SuperType but a UNION construction of instances, all sharing a similar identification for the Generalized OT? E.g.: <owl:Class rdf:ID="Fruit"> <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#SweetFruit" /> <owl:Class rdf:about="#NonSweetFruit" /> </owl:unionOf> </owl:Class> Or: <owl:Class rdf:ID="WineColor"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#WineDescriptor"/> <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <WineColor rdf:about="#White" /> <WineColor rdf:about="#Rose" /> <WineColor rdf:about="#Red" /> </owl:oneOf> </owl:Class> |
|
|
Or combine the subClassOf and the disjointWith: > Don't create your own vehicleType property and VehicleType class, just use rdf:Type and rdfs:subClassOf: :Car rdfs:subClassOf :Vehicle. :Boat rdfs:subClassOf :Vehicle. Then if you want to say that certain classes are disjunctive, use: :Car owl:disjointWith :Boat. < |
|
|
Any generalized object type with the following conditions is rendered as a Class with unionOf construction: <owl:Class rdf:ID="Fruit"> <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <owl:Class rdf:about="#SweetFruit" /> <owl:Class rdf:about="#NonSweetFruit" /> </owl:unionOf> </owl:Class> * Nominalized Fact Type has only optional roles * Nominalized Fact Type contains no Fact Type Expressions * Every Object Type Expression has only one role |
|
|
Closing automatically, stayed too long in resolved state. Feel free to re-open with additional information if you think the issue is not resolved. |
- Anonymous
