Re: Asset as superclass of Policy / Asset not superclass of Policy. Asset same as Thing.


On  2013-Jul-29, at 09:50, V?ctor Rodr?guez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
 wrote:

> 
> My answer below...
> 
> El 27/07/2013 9:51, Mo McRoberts escribi?:
>> On 26 Jul 2013, at 14:36, V?ctor Rodr?guez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Well, of course Asset must exist. But your sentence...
>>> The act of associating a policy with it is what defines it as an ODRL asset. 
>>> ...can be represented very simply and elegantly, with just three statements:
>>> 
>>> <Asset> rdf:type owl:Class .
>>> <vocab:target> rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
>>>           rdfs:range <Asset> .
>>> 
>>> Everything that is related to with a "vocab:target" is automatically inferred to be an Asset.
>>> 
>> That does not infer that, though, does it?
>> 
> Yes, it does :)
>> That says that everything related with vocab:target *must be defined as* an Asset; to specify a vocab:target being an instance which was not explicitly stated as being an Asset would be a violation of the schema.
>> 
> No, it isn't :) . Whatever it is, the instance will be classified as an Asset. Without you to declare it, without clashing with your previous class declarations.

I must confess I'm not entirely understanding that: how does specifying that the range of vocab:target cause that inference? Isn't a range a constraint, rather than an implication?


>>> Or even more exactly:
>>> 
>>> <Asset> rdf:type owl:Class ;
>>>          owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
>>>                                owl:onProperty [ owl:inverseOf <vocab:target> ] ;
>>>                                owl:someValuesFrom owl:Thing
>>>                              ] .
>>> 
>>> Which can be read: "Everything that is range of a vocab:target, and only what is in range of a vocab:target, is an Asset".
>>> At your choice.
>>> 
> This alternative declares that Assets are only such if bound through the vocab:target. I'd say this is over-restrictive and we don't need this.

Hm, as above: I don't quite follow how declaring a *restriction* brings about an *implication*?

I'll cheerfully confess I'm no OWL guru, but I'd like to get my head around how this works!

M.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and 
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in 
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the 
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender 
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails 
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to 
this.
-----------------------------

Forwarded message 1

  • From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:02:47 +0000
  • Subject: Re: Asset as superclass of Policy / Asset not superclass of Policy. Asset same as Thing.
  • To: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
  • CC: "<public-odrl@w3.org>" <public-odrl@w3.org>
  • Message-ID: <9000BF72-143D-4EE4-AC66-C35CF9E3D67B@bbc.co.uk>
On  2013-Jul-29, at 09:50, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
 wrote:

> 
> My answer below...
> 
> El 27/07/2013 9:51, Mo McRoberts escribió:
>> On 26 Jul 2013, at 14:36, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Well, of course Asset must exist. But your sentence...
>>> The act of associating a policy with it is what defines it as an ODRL asset. 
>>> ...can be represented very simply and elegantly, with just three statements:
>>> 
>>> <Asset> rdf:type owl:Class .
>>> <vocab:target> rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
>>>           rdfs:range <Asset> .
>>> 
>>> Everything that is related to with a "vocab:target" is automatically inferred to be an Asset.
>>> 
>> That does not infer that, though, does it?
>> 
> Yes, it does :)
>> That says that everything related with vocab:target *must be defined as* an Asset; to specify a vocab:target being an instance which was not explicitly stated as being an Asset would be a violation of the schema.
>> 
> No, it isn't :) . Whatever it is, the instance will be classified as an Asset. Without you to declare it, without clashing with your previous class declarations.

I must confess I'm not entirely understanding that: how does specifying that the range of vocab:target cause that inference? Isn't a range a constraint, rather than an implication?


>>> Or even more exactly:
>>> 
>>> <Asset> rdf:type owl:Class ;
>>>          owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
>>>                                owl:onProperty [ owl:inverseOf <vocab:target> ] ;
>>>                                owl:someValuesFrom owl:Thing
>>>                              ] .
>>> 
>>> Which can be read: "Everything that is range of a vocab:target, and only what is in range of a vocab:target, is an Asset".
>>> At your choice.
>>> 
> This alternative declares that Assets are only such if bound through the vocab:target. I'd say this is over-restrictive and we don't need this.

Hm, as above: I don't quite follow how declaring a *restriction* brings about an *implication*?

I'll cheerfully confess I'm no OWL guru, but I'd like to get my head around how this works!

M.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E

Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 09:18:50 UTC