W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: reusing URIs vs. mapping with owl:equivalentClass

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:08:31 -0400
Message-Id: <A4A0B795-3ED4-4915-95B3-B22510AD4AAD@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: "Kim, Soonho (KCEW)" <Soonho.Kim@fao.org>
Why not owl:import the first, which would bring in the classes you  
need, and then start with that as the base?
-Alan

On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Kim, Soonho (KCEW) wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have two related ontologies. One contains concepts represented in  
> multiple languages and with some relationships. The other covers  
> only a little part of this ontology, do not have all languages, but  
> extend it with many other related concepts. There are concepts that  
> are the same in the two ontologies.
>
> Would it be better to reuse the URI of concepts in both ontologies  
> or should I assign new URIs to the second (more detailed) ontology  
> and use the equivalentClass construct?  What it be better?  For  
> reasoning purposes what it is better? How does the current reasoner  
> such as Pellet or Racer process owl:equivantClass?
>
> Concerning maintenance, the first big ontology may be maintained,  
> the second one may be not.
>
> Thank you
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Soonho Kim
>
> Knowledge and Information Consultant
> WAICENT Knowledge Exchange Facilitation Branch (KCEW)
> Knowledge and Communication Department
> Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation
> Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
> 00100 Rome, Italy
> Telephone: (+39) 06 5705 3409
> Email: Soonho.Kim@fao.org
>
>
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 17:08:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT