- From: <tarod@softhome.net>
- Date: 2002年2月04日 15:25:20 GMT
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20020204152520.8857.qmail@softhome.net>
With the proposal of multiple ranges and multiple domains (disjuntion interpretation) you can say. <rdf:Property rdf:about="&p3p;disputeResolution"> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">dispute resolution</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en"> A collection of dispute resolution procedures that may be followed for disputes about a service's privacy practices. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&p3p;Policy"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&p3p;DisputeResolution-independent-organization"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&p3p;DisputeResolution-court"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&p3p;DisputeResolution-applicable-law"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&p3p;DisputeResolution-customer-service"/> </rdf:Property> And you have exactly what you wanted. Regards, Marc PS: Sorry for going back always to the same subject, but I think the decision RDFS wants to take is not the correct one and p3p example is perfect to show it. Brian McBride writes: > Hi Marc, > > At 14:10 04/02/2002 +0000, tarod@softhome.net wrote: > > > Thank you for your attention again, Brian. > > > ><!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ > > <!ENTITY rdf "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> > > <!ENTITY p3p "http://www.w3.org/2002/01/p3prdfv1#"> > >]> > ><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="&rdf;" > > xmlns:p3p ="&p3p;"> > > <p3p:Policy rdf:about="X"> > > <p3p:disputeResolution rdf:resource="Y"/> > > </p3p:Policy> > > <p3p:DisputeResolution rdf:about="Y"/> > ></rdf:RDF> > > > > Is it correct? > > I thought that might be the sort of thing you had in mind. I don't know of > any way in RDF schema to stop you doing this. It doesn't have a way of > saying "and this is all there is". > > Brian >
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 10:23:20 UTC