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

Re: Using OWL to represent non-state facts

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:00:00 +0200
To: "'C Haley'" <cands589@yahoo.co.uk>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005501c6d998$69f1aba0$0202a8c0@hans>
Hi Chris,
We use templates that are in essence N-ary Relations [1]. We define template
classes with the applicable property Restrictions, and then instantiate
these whenever required.
In your case the template instance for "Peter hosted a meeting in the office
yesterday" would look like:
    <Activity rdf:ID="FACT-98232479">
        <ex:participant rdf:resource="#Peter-20060916"/>
        <ex:participantType rdf:resource="#host"/>
        <ex:activity rdf:resource="ACT-32874334"/>
        <ex:activityType rdf:resource="#meeting"/>
        <ex:activityLocation rdf:resource="#ourOffice"/>
Mind you, this is a rough first cut. We define, separately, a "temporal
part" of Peter, that in fact has a beginning and an ending. Aka of 4th
dimension as referred to by Henry Story [2].
The meeting is, here, a "temporal whole", because we assume that Peter did
host the entire meeting. If he would have hosted only a (temporal) part of
the meeting, we would create a temporal part of that meeting for that
reason. If he would have hosted only certain parts of the meeting (points on
the agenda) we would have created a subactivity for that reason.
More on this you can find on our site [3]
PS This is clearly OWL-Full :-)
Hans Teijgeler
ISO 15926 specialist
+31-72-509 2005
HYPERLINK "http://www.infowebml.ws/"www.InfowebML.ws 
HYPERLINK "mailto:hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl"hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl


From: C Haley [mailto:cands589@yahoo.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 20:23
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

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.


Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. HYPERLINK
.co.uk/blackberry"Enter now. 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/447 - Release Date: 13-Sep-06

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.4/449 - Release Date: 15-Sep-06
Received on Saturday, 16 September 2006 14:02:07 UTC

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