W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: Not out of the water yet...OWL DL properties

From: Daniel Gresh <dgresh@lle.rochester.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:14:00 -0400
Message-ID: <44DCBAD8.7070407@lle.rochester.edu>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Hans Teijgeler wrote:

>Hi Bijan,
>
>Yes, it tells that all instances of the class
>CalControlsHardwareRequirements have a property 'imageProperty' that has a
>value of D-AB-M-037_REVA_12.png
>(just like all instances of Ford Mustang we have the same
>FordMustangHandbook)
>
>Regards,
>Hans
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@isr.umd.edu] 
>Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 18:08
>To: Hans Teijgeler
>Cc: 'Daniel Gresh'; public-owl-dev@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Not out of the water yet...OWL DL properties
>
>Hans,
>
>That doesn't put the class in the subject position, is just makes every
>instance of the class have to be related to the same entity.  
>That is, it doesn't make that property a property of the class itself, but
>of every instance (with the same value).
>
>Perhaps that's what was really wanted? Daniel?
>
>Cheers,
>Bijan.
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/416 - Release Date: 10-Aug-06
> 
>
>  
>
Sorry for taking awhile to respond to this; I've been busy cleaning up 
my Java code (I'm using Jena) and figuring out how to get an Exception 
or two thrown.

As for using owl:onProperty, and giving all individuals of the class the 
assigned restriction, that is not what I want to do. As Bijan says here, 
I want the class itself to have that property, which is apparently not 
legal in OWL DL.

The restriction suggested will actually prove useful to me in the 
future, as there are some cases in which I want all individuals of a 
certain class to have a certain ImageProperty assigned to them. So, 
although that is not exactly what I'm looking for in this case, it will 
be useful to me, and I thank you for suggesting it.

In conclusion, it looks as if I will be designing my ontology in OWL 
Full, unless I can think of a way to sidestep the problem and stay in 
OWL DL. Perhaps I will create individuals that are nothing but images, 
and assign them the image property necessary, rather than the class. The 
problem with that is I will need to find a way to make those images be 
recognized by SPARQL and displayed along with the class, but that's 
another issue entirely.

Thank you both for your help, I really appreciate it.
Dan
Received on Friday, 11 August 2006 17:14:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:53 GMT