gist:hasFirstMember has the following as part of a scopeNote which wrongly suggests that a strict ordering is not allowed.:
Since ordered collections may not be strictly ordered, there can be more than one first member.
This should be replaced bySince ordered collections need not be strictly ordered, there can be more than one first member.
I.e. replace 'may with 'need'
===
ALSO: the scopeNote for the class, OrderedMember says: An ordered member points to the real world item via the providesOrderFor property.. It is correct to model this directly as a restriction, is there a good reason for not doing so? The revised definition would be something like the following; the only difference is the one added restriction.
gist:OrderedMember
a owl:Class ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy <https://w3id.org/semanticarts/ontology/gistCore> ;
owl:equivalentClass [
a owl:Class ;
owl:intersectionOf (
[
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty gist:providesOrderFor ;
owl:someValuesFrom owl:Thing ;
]
[
a owl:Class ;
owl:unionOf (
[
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty [
owl:inverseOf gist:precedesDirectly ;
] ;
owl:someValuesFrom gist:OrderedMember ;
]
[
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty gist:precedesDirectly ;
owl:someValuesFrom gist:OrderedMember ;
]
[
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty gist:sequence ;
owl:someValuesFrom xsd:integer ;
]
) ;
]
[
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty [
owl:inverseOf gist:hasMember ;
] ;
owl:allValuesFrom gist:OrderedCollection ;
]
[
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty [
owl:inverseOf gist:hasMember ;
] ;
owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
]
) ;
] ;
skos:definition "A member of an ordered collection serving as a proxy for a real world item, which can appear in different orders in different collections. The ordered member appears in exactly one ordered collection."^^xsd:string ;
skos:example "A person may rank 12th in the Boston Marathon but 29th in the New York City Marathon."^^xsd:string ;
skos:prefLabel "Ordered Member"^^xsd:string ;
skos:scopeNote "An ordered member points to the real world item via the providesOrderFor property. Ordering information is represented either as a number in a sequence, or by preceding or following another ordered member."^^xsd:string ;
.
gist:hasFirstMember has the following as part of a scopeNote which wrongly suggests that a strict ordering is not allowed.:
Since ordered collections may not be strictly ordered, there can be more than one first member.This should be replaced by
Since ordered collections need not be strictly ordered, there can be more than one first member.I.e. replace 'may with 'need'
===
ALSO: the scopeNote for the class,
OrderedMembersays:An ordered member points to the real world item via the providesOrderFor property.. It is correct to model this directly as a restriction, is there a good reason for not doing so? The revised definition would be something like the following; the only difference is the one added restriction.