RE: About OWL syntax
> > The class definition and the property definition could be > located anywhere > > in the document and no constraints on placement are imposed by > the specs. By > > simple examination of the class object it is not possible for > somebody to > > deduce what are the properties of this object. However, by a simple > > examination of the property object it is possible to know what are the > > classes associated to this property. > > That is intentional in the RDF Schema design: properties are a primitive > notion distinct from classes. This allows you to add your own properties > to existing classes. For example, you might define the class your:book, > with properties dc:title, dc:author, isbn:isbn, and your:rating, the last > representing what you think of the book. I could then add new properties > to the class such as my:rating or my:criticizesW3C. This is part of the > support machinery for the design principle "anyone can say anything about > anything in RDF". An additional point is that OWL (and RDF) is essentially declarative, so there isn't an procedural tie between classes and properties like goto. More like ravioli than spaghetti. Cheers, Danny.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format