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

RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Punning and the "properties for classes" use case

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 21:57:29 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A04A8F95@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Evren Sirin" <evren@clarkparsia.com>
Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

Hi, Evren!

Evren Sirin wrote on Sunday, November 04:


>>   (1) Stop hunting for metamodelling capabilities in OWL-1.1-DL.
>>       Metamodelling, even in a restricted form, would really be 
>>       a useful feature, but the community has already learnt 
>>       to live with the current situation.
>No, not really. The workarounds for vocabulary separation is ugly and 
>cumbersome. I will give you one example related to OWL-S 
>effort [2] but 
>there are other similar use cases. OWL-S coalition worked hard to keep 
>OWL-S ontologies in the DL species to make it accessible to OWL-DL 
>reasoners. This meant to create a shadow list for rdf:List vocabulary 
>quoting URI's and RDF/XML snippets as literal values, etc. This rather 
>ugly solution created many problems for developers (e.g. me as the 
>developer of OWL-S API [3]) and users of OWL-S (see [4] about one 
>example problema). With the use of punning all these troubles go away. 
>And the incompleteness regarding sameAs-equivalentClass has no 
>importance in this setting.

Ok, now we come to some core point: The use cases. When I wrote my original
mail, the only relevant usecase for "classes as instances" I could imagine
was to assign object properties to classes. But there are more, right? What
I am still missing is a document which lists and discusses some relevant use
cases for punning. Particularly, I am looking for use cases where the
missing sameAs-equivalentClass entailment does not hurt. Honestly, I have
difficulties to imagine that this is really the case. Nevertheless, the most
relevant point is to first have such a use case document. And also I want to
have a technical specification of punning, because I have the feeling that
there is still no common agreement on what punning provides and what not.


>> I think this alone already suffices, no need to look for more. :)
>I disagree. Punning solves the problems in the above use case and the 
>sameAs-equivalentClass distinction has no impact. There were other 
>similar use cases discussed at OWLED from different domains where 
>punning would be sufficient.

Sounds interesting. Is there a document where these use cases are documented
and discussed? This would possibly be exactly what I am looking for.


Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 20:57:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC