On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:07:25 +0200
Bob Ferris wrote:
> Finally, what do you think should we use now: rdf:value and some
> restrictions on it for co:Counter or co:count as it is already
> defined + a cardinality restriction of 1 on co:Counter for co:count?
I'm indifferent as to which you should
Hi Toby,
Am 21.07.2010 13:48, schrieb Toby Inkster:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:56:05 +0200
Bob Ferris wrote:
How can I make sure that the value of my counter concept is of the
type xsd:Integer?
co:Counter
rdfs:subClassOf [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProper
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:56:05 +0200
Bob Ferris wrote:
> How can I make sure that the value of my counter concept is of the
> type xsd:Integer?
co:Counter
rdfs:subClassOf [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty rdf:value ;
owl:allValuesFrom xsd
Sorry Bob, I was reading the RDFS spec in a completely wrong way, as it
says clearly[1]:
"A typed literal is an instance of a datatype class."
So you're doing it all right, then.
My initial point was merely about putting rdf:value to better use, but I
understand your desire to have a special
Hi Vasiliy,
Am 20.07.2010 15:50, schrieb Vasiliy Faronov:
Bob Ferris wrote:
How can I make sure that the value of my counter concept is of the type
xsd:Integer? I think with the current definition:
co:count
rdf:type rdf:Property , owl:FunctionalProperty ;
rdfs:comment "Links a
Bob Ferris wrote:
> How can I make sure that the value of my counter concept is of the type
> xsd:Integer? I think with the current definition:
>
> co:count
>rdf:type rdf:Property , owl:FunctionalProperty ;
>rdfs:comment "Links a counter resource to the actual count"@en ;
>
Hi Vasiliy,
Am 20.07.2010 14:39, schrieb Vasiliy Faronov:
Bob Ferris wrote:
The second property of co:Counter is co:count, which is a simple
xsd:int based datatype property.
Any reasons for not using rdf:value[1]?
Not that it would make a lot of difference, but seems like this property
was
Bob Ferris wrote:
> The second property of co:Counter is co:count, which is a simple
> xsd:int based datatype property.
Any reasons for not using rdf:value[1]?
Not that it would make a lot of difference, but seems like this property
was made exactly for such statements.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 12:21 +0200, Bob Ferris wrote:
> I don't know about a good translation for this, but a good German phrase
> for describing this situation is: "Es wurde ja auch Zeit!". I don't know
> about any good English translation for this, yet.
My German is not as good as it used to be
Hi Toby,
Apologies for cross postings ;)
Am 25.06.2010 11:10, schrieb Toby Inkster:
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 23:22 +0200, Bob Ferris wrote:
Here is the Counter Ontology
Yay! Now we can do mid-90s style web page hit counters in RDFa!
I don't know about a good translation for this, but a
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 23:22 +0200, Bob Ferris wrote:
> Here is the Counter Ontology
Yay! Now we can do mid-90s style web page hit counters in RDFa!
--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Hello,
Apologies for cross posting ;)
Here is the Counter Ontology [1], which includes a general multiple
purpose counter concept. This concept could be uses to associate any
owl:Thing typed concept to (a) co:Counter instance(s) with the property
co:counter or a specific sub property of it
12 matches
Mail list logo
