RE: Inverse properties in owl 2 (was Re: xsd or vocabulary)

Regarding the modeling of bibliographic records, I would be tempted to
deal with them as "generic resources" something like this:

 

<bibrec-uri> a
<http://www.w3.org/2006/gen/ont#ContentTypeGenericResource> .

 

For example, I could imagine asserting this someday:

 

<info:oclcnum/13245> owl:sameAs < a-cool-generic-resource-uri> .

 

(c.f. http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#r303gendocument)

 

We could probably also deal with them using the IRW ontology like so:

 

<bibrec-uri> a
<http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/web/irw.owl#InformationResour
ce> .

 

I don't like this as much, though, because I think the "generic" aspect
is important for representing them diversely on the Web.

 

Jeff

 

 

From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 11:56 AM
To: Karen Coyle
Cc: Adrian Pohl; public-lld@w3.org
Subject: Re: Inverse properties in owl 2 (was Re: xsd or vocabulary)

 

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

	Simon, for those of us who cannot make the connection, can you
explain how this answers Adrian's question? (I'm figuring I'll learn
something.)

 

Karen - 

    My message  was only addressing a specific part of the original
question:

 

	# ex:describes is because there is no inverse property to
wdrs:describedby.

	# Does anybody know an appropriate predicate for this?

 

I changed the subject line to indicate both that I was only addressing a
small part of the specific question, and to briefly introduce a little
bit of OWL that is of more general use for the lld discussion.

 

The point that I was trying to make is that object properties always
have an inverse.  I didn't explicitly make the second point, which is
that in pure RDF, making an assertion using  an inverse property  has
exactly the same meaning as making an assertion using the forward
property with the subject and object reversed.

 

(1) Kim loves Sandy.

 

is true precisely when 

 

(2) Sandy is loved by Kim.

 

is true.

 

This, of course, does not entail: 

 

(3) Sandy loves Kim. 

 

I am putting together some messages that will hopefully clarify some of
the points of confusion that have come up in that-other-thread;
including confusion about bibliographic data on the part of some of
ontologists, and confusion about ontologies on the part of some subject
matter experts.  Caution: made on equipment that also processes
Lubetzky and Quine.  

 

Simon