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

RE: Bill-Of-Material in OWL

From: Ibach, Brandon L <brandon.l.ibach@lmco.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:56:10 -0400
To: "Gocev, Pavel" <pavel.gocev@ipk.fraunhofer.de>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-id: <0D237077B37CD943A64396032B6569270377018A@EMSS04M23.us.lmco.com>
    I'm not sure I quite understand your example, but if your
requirement is that, for example, you need attach different information
to the relationship between Component_C1 and Product_A (either the
number 4 or four separate Items) than to the relationship between that
same Component_C1 and Product_B (again, either the number 3 or three
separate items), then I would lean toward using the "class as relation"
model suggested in the SWBP Note (pattern 1, covering use cases 1, 2 and
3).  If, by OWL 1.1, you mean the new n-ary datatypes support, I'd
advise against trying to work with it.  It is an area of the spec that,
as I understand it, may undergo a fair bit of change, yet, it is not
well supported by current tools and I don't believe it would be well
suited (if suited at all) as a solution for your case.  Of course, more
detail about your example and what you're trying to do would help in
providing a more informed suggestion. :)
    Since you mentioned the N-ary relations Note,  I'd like to pose a
question to the list in general.  In
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/#choosingPattern1or2, the
second bullet describes a "maintenance problem" created by the "class as
relation" approach and provides a specific example that would be tedious
to model in OWL if this approach were used.  Starting with the N3
example provided for use case 3, would adding the following not serve to
encode this constraint?
        :BookSeller a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf :Company .
        _:x a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty :has_seller ;
owl:someValuesFrom :BookSeller ;
            rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty
:has_object ; owl:allValuesFrom :Book ] .
    I was able to get the expected results with this using Pellet.  It
seems like a reasonably concise encoding of the constraint and would, I
think, avoid the "lattice of classes" mentioned in the Note.

-Brandon :)



From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gocev, Pavel
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:44 AM
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Subject: Bill-Of-Material in OWL

Dear all,


I am trying to model a Bill Of Material for Product_A and Product_B due
to following structure:


Product_A consist of:

-          Component_C1 - 4 Items

-          Component_C2 - 2 Items


Product_B consist of:

-          Component_C1 - 3 Items

-          Component_C2 - 3 Items


Should I use the principle of http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/
or it is more suitable OWL 1.1. (if yes I would appreciate the example).


Thank you in advance and Best Regards, 

Pavel Gocev
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 21:55:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC