W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: regarding the issue in building ontology.

From: Thomas Schneider <schneidt@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:36:09 +0000
Message-Id: <4FFE66F5-B28A-41F1-A7F2-C576F1927AB3@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hi Revathy,

On 20 Jan 2010, at 10:19, revathy krishnamurthi wrote:

> Right now we are trying to build a ontology as a team and we find  
> class inference is the problem, when we merge two ontologies.
> For instance X1 and X2 are two classes and Y1 ,Z1 are subclass of  
> X1, Y2,Z2 are subclasses of X2, and Z2 has data of Z1, what is the  
> inference of Z2 with X1? (Actually Z2 should also be inferred as  
> member of X1!!!!, which we are not getting.)

What do you mean by "Z2 has data of Z1"? Even if the same individuals  
are asserted to be instances of Z1 and Z2, the open world assumption  
underlying OWL means that there can still be other instances of Z1 or  
Z2, so (a) Z1 and Z2 cannot be not inferred to be equivalent and (b)  
Z2 cannot be inferred to be a subclass of X1.



> how to solve this issue, especially when two ontologies are merged  
> that has connectivity in between?(Assume X1 and X2 are different  
> ontologies.) and at this level we are using rdf, rdfs and skos to  
> begin.
> expecting a solution for the better understanding of ontology  
> development.
> -- 
> Regards,
> Revathy Krishnamurthi,
> Trainee,
> Metaome Science Informatics,
> Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore

|  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk  |
|  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt  |
|  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161 2756136  |
|  University of Manchester                                            |
|  Oxford Road                                             _///_       |
|  Manchester M13 9PL                                      (o~o)       |

Nacton (n.)
  The 'n' with which cheap advertising copywriters replace the word  
  (as in 'fish 'n' chips', 'mix 'n' match', 'assault 'n' battery'), in
  the mistaken belief that it is in some way chummy or endearing.

                   Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 14:36:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:18 UTC