I came recently over an example of a modeling of a DatatypeProperty. Firstly, the definitions of the properties themselves:
So there is class called
From my point of view this is a wrong modeling. However, it forces a bit my point of view, to model DatatypeProperties as inbuilt ObjectProperties, which would make such modeling more or less possible (here the domain of efoaf:interest_value_updatatime must probably be changed to xsd:duration).
What do you think about this modeling?
asked 11 Aug '10, 09:17
The example doesn't make sense as it stands. You declare both properties as having domain
It's not clear from the description what you are trying to achieve. One guess is that you want to have a resource (e.g. a blank node) represent a literal value so that you can attach some other attributes to the literal. If so then that is possible in OWL full but not this way (since
Which does allow you to add other properties to the object-as-literal such as:
But it's not much use because you can't use this pattern to express the sort things you might want such as a validity interval or a unit-of-measure (years).
answered 11 Aug '10, 13:20
I tried to remodel my current proposal, which uses object-oriented context reification, now with help of Named Graphs. However, I'm unsure if my intended use is currently really possible. Therefore, I uploaded the scientific research interests example, which is modeled with help of the current draft of the Weighted Interests Vocabulary, and the remodeling proposal that uses Named Graphs.
answered 25 Aug '10, 10:01