Re: Using OWL to represent non-state facts

Ciao,
I suggest you to read:

Alessandro Artale and Enrico Franconi (2001). A Survey of Temporal  
Extensions of Description Logics. Annals of Mathematics and  
Artificial Intelligence (AMAI), Vol. 30 No. 1-4, 2001, Kluwer  
Academic Publishers.
<http://www.inf.unibz.it/~franconi/papers/amai-00.ps.gz>

where you can find interesting discussions on the representation of  
dynamic information in description logics; and:

Alessandro Artale and Enrico Franconi (2005). Temporal Description  
Logics. In Handbook of Temporal Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence,  
edited by Dov Gabbay, Michael Fisher and Lluis Vila. Elsevier,  
"Foundations of Artificial Intelligence" Series.
<http://www.inf.unibz.it/~franconi/papers/time-handbook.ps.gz>

which summarises the state-of-the-art of description logics for  
dynamic information from a technical perspective.

cheers
--e.

On 11 Sep 2006, at 20:22, C Haley wrote:

> Hi
>
> I’ve been reading through the various OWL documents and from what  
> I’ve seen it appears that OWL is very good at representing state  
> information, either of classes or individuals, but does not seem to  
> allow for representing non-state relationships.
>
> For example I can use OWL to represent the concept ‘man’ as a  
> class, represent Peter as an instance of that class, and I can  
> define a property stateOfHealth, and the concept ill, and create a  
> triple to say stateOfHealth(Peter, ill). This is representing a  
> fact which defines the state of an instance.
>
> But suppose I want to represent the fact that Peter hosted a  
> meeting in the office yesterday.
>
> Even if I created an artificial property ‘toHost’ and a blank node  
> as an instance of the concept ‘meeting’, there is no way to attach  
> the time and location to the property.
>
> Also I would want this property to derive from a URI representing  
> the concept of ‘hosting a meeting’, but the OWL syntax seems to  
> require properties to derive from other properties, not from a  
> generic URI. So clearly this is not the correct way to represent an  
> action.
>
> Can anyone tell me if there are any recommendations or documents  
> describing the preferred solution to this problem? Alternatively is  
> this an area where the existing OWL syntax/vocabulary is likely to  
> be extended - is anyone actively working on this issue at present?  
> Are there any draft recommendations in circulation?
>
> Many thanks for any comments anyone can give.
>
> Chris