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: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:50:21 -0400
Message-Id: <p062309cec1026e400653@[]>
To: Daniel Gresh <dgresh@lle.rochester.edu>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Daniel -  you might want to check out 
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-classes-as-values/ which is the working 
note on this topic what was prepared by the Semantic Web Best 
Practices and Deployment WG.  They discuss some cases the map to 
yours very well, and show a number of different ways to approach the 
problem if you want to use an OWL DL reasoner - they describe several 
popular workarounds and provide examples of OWL for each.
  While I am not at all upset with your move to OWL Full (and wish 
everyone else would as well), I admit that there may be cases where 
using tools like Pellet can be useful, and the report above shows 
some fairly easy to use approaches
  -Jim H.

At 13:14 -0400 8/11/06, Daniel Gresh wrote:
>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
>>-----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
>>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, 
>>of every instance (with the same value).
>>Perhaps that's what was really wanted? Daniel?
>>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.

Prof James Hendler				hendler@cs.umd.edu
Dept of Computer Science			http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
AV Williams Bldg				301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland				301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA
Received on Friday, 11 August 2006 17:51:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC