W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:59:37 -0500
Message-ID: <45C64939.2020404@musc.edu>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

> Remember that we are using OWL, which has inheritence. Using an owl 
> hasValue restriction we can have a set of triples specified once, but 
> with the reasoner have be as if each instance has those triples[1]. 
> BTW, I will anticipate the complaint about the OWL reasoner's 
> heaviness. Although we are prototyping with OWL, it may very well be 
> that the constructs we need for this task form a much simpler logic 
> that is tractable[2], or even fairly trivial to work with. For 
> instance, it may be that the run time "reasoner" only has to deal with 
> following subclass, subproperty, and propagating the consequences of 
> hasValue restrictions, and a full fledged reasoner is only used to 
> validate the resolution ontology when it is changed.
I am not sure how owl:hasValue can be used here? The owl:hasValue is 
intended for a resource, but not the string that IDed the resource 
right? For instance, if there is an ontology says the 
rabbit:favoriteFood is  ex:carrot.  It implies every object of 
rabbit:favoriteFood is a carrot, but it does not means the property 
pointing to the same resource, right? There can be two instances of 
carrots, one at http://example.com/foo and the other one at 
http://xyz.org/bar.  Although both are carrots, but they can have 
different weights, colors etc., I am not sure how can owl:hasValue help 

As I replied to David in an earlier email, the only reasonable way to do 
is to use an ontology to describe the URI's string composition. But the 
semantics of a string is different from the semantics of the resource 
identified by the string. To make it work, those statement (or 
information) must be added somewhere.  If it is not added locally (then 
you would have to rewrite the URI), then it must be added globally.  If 
added globally, it is like put another DNS over existing DNS.  If this 
is the case, shouldn't it be more appropriate done outside of the RDF? 
Honestly, the more I think about it, the worse I felt about the approach.


Received on Sunday, 4 February 2007 21:00:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:29 UTC