W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: Xtreme Punning

From: Denny Vrandečić <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:19:42 +0100
Message-ID: <478750CE.9030208@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

I think this kind of punning comes very natural.

Snoopy a Dog.
Dog a Species.
Charlie_Brown Dog Snoopy.

All of them feel right, and are also allowed in both RDF and OWL with 

Father rdfs:range Father.
Anakin a Father.
Luke Father Anakin.

This is a natural pattern to describe most of the so called dependant 
properties in OntoClean, as well, but that's a sidenote.

Or, to put it shortly, I really like punning :) It will also make our 
work on wikis so much easier! (and I could write an essay on how)


Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> off-list wrote:
>> could you please point me to examples of use of punning in real 
>> applications.
> There are three examples that fall under the two kinds that Michael 
> identified:
>>>> When thinking about punning in OWL-1.1-DL, I always differentiated 
>>>> between
>>>> two "kinds" of punning:
>>>>     * punning between individuals and classes,
> A) classes as instances
> =======================
> A class in one view of an ontology may be an individual in another.
> e.g.
> the class of Ford Motor Vehicle Models, may include the individual Ford 
> Cortina;
> the class of Ford Cortina may include a particular car that I once owned 
> (actually an untrue statement!).
> It can be argued that this is a modelling error. However, if so, it is a 
> popular one.
>>>>     * punning between data properties and object properties.
> B) RDF legacy
> =============
> dc:creator is used as both, and its definition seems to expect it to be 
> used as both. There are perhaps some other properties from the RDF world 
> that are important and behave similarly. (e.g. rdf:_1, rdf:_2)
> Technically, but of no great interest really, RDF legacy also includes 
> some 'punning' between individuals and classes, because RDF includes 
> metamodelling such as:
>  owl:inverseOf rdf:type rdf:Property.
> C) lists
> ========
> Evren provided the example of rdf:first (or eg:first in a shadow 
> vocabulary), in a list. In a list of literals, rdf:first acts as a data 
> property, in a list of things, rdf:first acts as an object property.
> Bijan motivates some of the design decisions in OWL 1.1 as trying to 
> accomodate more RDF, so that arguments B and C have merit. Also, because 
> of the popularity of the modelling technique of classes as instances, A 
> has merit.
> [[Bijan, have I correctly understood your position?]]
> Jeremy
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 11:19:46 UTC

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