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

Re: class and inviduals

From: Marco Colombetti <colombet@elet.polimi.it>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:22:12 +0100
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <web-30556722@elet.polimi.it>
Aldo is right, punning is allowed in OOWL2, but I wonder 
whether it should be considered as good practice. In my 
opinion it conceils certain important modelling choices, 
and is likely to induce confusion.

Any strong opinion about this?


On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:50:43 +0100
  Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote:
> Hi Marcel, this is a typical modelling issue. The 
>solution is to treat terms alternatively as classes or 
>individuals according to the requirement (or 
>conceptualization) you have. 
> In case you want to talk of Ferrari as a company, and 
>your requirement is e.g. to ask about the foundation date 
>of a company, Ferrari should be an individual; if you 
>want to talk about Ferrari as a class of all concrete 
>cars produced by Ferrari-the-company, you probably want 
>to model Ferrari as a class.
> In case of strong ambiguity, e.g. with maximally 
>specified car models such as "Ferrari 365 GT/4 BB" 
>(either a model or a concrete example of that model), 
>OWL2 is very good at modelling the ambiguity by means of 
>the so-called "punning" mechanism: the same term holds 
>two different interpretations.
> Good luck
> Aldo 
> On 15 Nov 2010, at 22:59, Marcel Ferrante wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Sometimes, when we define class and individual to 
>>students, appears some doubts.
>> For example:
>> In the owl reference (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/) 
>>class is defined as "abstraction mechanism for grouping 
>>resources with similar characteristics"
>> or class define a set of individuals with same 
>>characteristics in common.
>> A good exemple is car (class) and ferrari enzo 
>> But there is many cars that are ferrari enzo, so ferrari 
>>enzo could be a class and Jonh's ferrari enzo an 
>> So ferrari enzo could be a class and an invidividual in 
>>the same ontology ? Or ferrari enzo could be a subclass 
>>of car,
>> but its diferent than a tradiconal subclass like sport 
>> Is there a more clear definition of class and individual 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Marcel
>> -- 
>> Marcel Ferrante Silva
>> +55 31 8851-9069 3785-9069
>> skype: marcelferrante
>> gtalk: marcelf@gmail.com
> _____________________________________
> Aldo Gangemi
> Senior Researcher
> Semantic Technology Lab (STLab)
> Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology,
> National Research Council (ISTC-CNR) 
> Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy 
> Tel: +390644161535
>Fax: +390644161513
> aldo.gangemi@cnr.it
> http://www.stlab.istc.cnr.it
> http://www.istc.cnr.it/createhtml.php?nbr=71
> skype aldogangemi
> okkam ID: 
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 10:22:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:19 UTC