W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > March 2011

AW: Ontological constraints

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:15:07 +0100
Message-ID: <6DA97EFF2763174B8BDC409CA19729840D3428E3@dbf-ex.AD.DDB.DE>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
Jeff,

for those of us (i. e. me) who are not so deep into OWL: What's the difference between owl:ObjectProperty and
owl:DatatypeProperty? I guess it's got something to do with is-a vs. has-a.

Thanks,

Lars

  **** Bitte beachten Sie die neue Internet- und E-Mail-Adresse. ****
  **** Please note my new internet- and email-address. ****

-- 
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik
http://www.dnb.de/
l.svensson@dnb.de


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. März 2011 15:35
> An: Svensson, Lars; Karen Coyle; public-lld
> Betreff: RE: Ontological constraints
> 
> One aspect of this is that it isn't necessarily essential to include
> rdf:type properties when we name individuals using a URI. Many of them
> can be inferred on-demand from the domain/range of its properties. In
> those cases, including them in an RDF document representation is just
> another form of caching.
> 
> I think it makes sense to emphasize properties over classes, especially
> if those properties are defined as owl:ObjectProperty vs.
> owl:DatatypeProprety. "is-a" is nice to know and handy for dealing with
> sets of individuals, but "has-a" says how and why somebody believes A
> and B are two different things. If the property relationship connecting
> the two individuals is believable, then it helps inform our
> understanding of the "is-a" relationships assigned to the individuals.
> 
> I think it's interesting to look at the DBpedia entry for "Pride and
> Prejudice" and ask which properties are problematic and why. How we
> could tweak them to make more sense without starting from scratch?
> 
> http://dbpedia.org/page/Pride_and_Prejudice
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:15 AM
> > To: Young,Jeff (OR); Karen Coyle; public-lld
> > Subject: AW: Ontological constraints
> >
> > Karen, Jeff,
> >
> > A late note on this:
> >
> > > I think the key phrase is "sufficient to support the intended
> > knowledge
> > > sharing activities".
> > >
> > > One area of disagreement seems to be on the need to proliferate
> > > properties to encode the domain and/or range in the property name
> > > itself.
> >
> > Tom quoted Karen in saying
> >
> > [[
> > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:35:22AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > > I actually think that we should emphasize the "has a" rather than
> "is
> > > a" aspects of the resources we describe, and let the "has a" allow
> us
> > > to infer any number of "is a" qualities. This is the message that
> Jon
> > > Phipps gave at the tutorial day at DC in Pittsburgh -- that we
> > > describe things by their characteristics, and those characteristics
> > > tell us what the thing *is*.
> >
> > Yes, that sounds right to me.  Emphasize Properties
> > (relationships) over Classes. Verbs over nouns.  Describe
> > things less through giving them a name -- i.e., writing a
> > definition for a class of things to which they belong --
> > and more through enumerating their characteristics.
> > ]] [1]
> >
> > If this is so, then I'd say that we _definitely_ need to state
> > domain/range for the properties, otherwise The System (TM) will not
> be
> > able to find out what the thing is, even if it knows the
> > characteristics. Does that make sense?
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Mar/0025.html
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Lars
> >
> >
> >   **** Bitte beachten Sie die neue Internet- und E-Mail-Adresse. ****
> >   **** Please note my new internet- and email-address. ****
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Lars G. Svensson
> > Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik
> > http://www.dnb.de/
> > l.svensson@dnb.de
> >
> >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
> Im
> > > Auftrag von Young,Jeff (OR)
> > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. März 2011 20:11
> > > An: Karen Coyle; public-lld
> > > Betreff: RE: Ontological constraints
> > >
> > > I think the key phrase is "sufficient to support the intended
> > knowledge
> > > sharing activities".
> > >
> > > One area of disagreement seems to be on the need to proliferate
> > > properties to encode the domain and/or range in the property name
> > > itself.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-
> request@w3.org]
> > On
> > > > Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:03 PM
> > > > To: public-lld
> > > > Subject: Ontological constraints
> > > >
> > > > Pursuant to our discussion today on the WG conference call about
> > FR's
> > > > and ontological constraints, this quote I first saw when Tom
> Baker
> > > > posted it, and later I discovered the actual article it was from:
> > > >
> > > > 5. Minimal ontological commitment: An ontology should require the
> > > > minimal ontological commitment sufficient to support the intended
> > > > knowledge sharing activities. An ontology should make as few
> claims
> > > as
> > > > possible about the world being modeled, allowing the parties
> > > committed
> > > > to the ontology freedom to specialize and instantiate the
> ontology
> > as
> > > > needed. Since ontological commitment is based on consistent use
> of
> > > > vocabulary, ontological commitment can be minimized by specifying
> > the
> > > > weakest theory (allowing the most models) and defining only those
> > > > terms that are essential to the communication of knowledge
> > consistent
> > > > with that theory.
> > > >
> > > > Gruber, Thomas R. ?Toward principles for the design of ontologies
> > > used
> > > > for knowledge sharing.? International Journal Human-Computer
> > Studies
> > > > 43 (1993): 907-928.
> > > > (p.3)
> > > >
> > > > I think what our discussion was dancing around was whether we
> think
> > > > that the FRBR entity constraints constitute the appropriate level
> > of
> > > > commitment. Some think that it is, others feel that it
> > > > over-constrains. Perhaps the message from the group (for the
> > report)
> > > > is that the level of constraint needs to be investigated in
> > relation
> > > > to the "knowledge sharing activities".
> > > >
> > > > kc
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Karen Coyle
> > > > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > > > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > > > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > > > skype: kcoylenet
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 15:16:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 March 2011 15:16:14 GMT