W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a practical question

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:17:08 +0000
Message-ID: <405F2DA4.9020007@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org


I was not at all clear that this needed classes as instances...

e.g.

<owl:Class rdf:ID="PhDThesis">
   <owl:equivalentClass>
       <owl:Restriction>
          <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="&dc;subject"/>
          <owl:hasValue>PhD Thesis</owl:hasValue>
       </owl:Restriction>
    </owl:equivalentClass>
</owl:Class>


Then the values of the properties relate to classes ...

Jeremy


Christopher Welty wrote:

>
> I may be misunderstanding your question, but I believe it is quite 
> simple: if you want to treat classes as instances you are in OWL Full. 
>  There is simply no way to do that in DL or Lite, this was one of the 
> basic differentiators between the subsets and the full language.
>
> -Chris
>
> Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
> IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     
> USA              
> Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
> Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: 
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/
>
>
> *"Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>*
> Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>
> 03/19/2004 05:02 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	"SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	[OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a practical question
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is a practical question that we have often met in Mondeca. The 
> message below comes
> from a partner in an European project, developing linguistic tools to 
> generate queries on
> a semantic knowledge base.
>
> To sum up the issue, the question is how to express that the subject 
> (dc:subject) of a
> document is a concept used as a class in an ontology, e.g 
> "Phd_Theses". My view is that if
> you don't want to be in OWL-Full, the only way is to make distinct the 
> concept used as
> class and the concept used as document subject (defined as instance in 
> a thesaurus).
> The argument against that is that the search engine could leverage the 
> ontology
> subsumptions to expand queries e.g. from "find documents about 
> publications" to "find
> documents about PhD Theses" ... more arguments below in Patrizia 
> Paggio message.
>
> Best practice for that, folks ?
>
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Knowledge Engineering
> Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Patrizia Paggio [mailto:patrizia@cst.dk]
> Envoye : vendredi 19 mars 2004 11:28
> A : Bernard Vatant
> Cc : Lina Henriksen; CST
> Objet : Re: Federated questions
>
>
> Dear Bernard
> since you ask directly for my opinion, here it comes :-) .
>
> I think I'm sceptical about the so-called thesaurus solution probably 
> because I don't
> totally understand why it is smart (alas, in spite of all these email 
> exchanges!).
> Let me try and explain the way I see things without getting into 
> details with OWL -Full.
> To take the Webpage on PhD theses, I think we wish to be able to 
> express the fact that the
> Webpage is also about dissertations, and about publications in 
> general, as predicted by
> the isa structure: Publication <= Dissertation <= PhD Thesis. This 
> means in my opinion
> that if the user asks for a Webpage on Publications, the page on PhD 
> Theses should be
> among the hits. In general, I think it is fair to say that if a 
> document is about a
> certain university-relevant concept in our ontology, it is also at the 
> same time about the
> concepts that subsume the concept under consideration.
> Now, if this is true, it seems to me that if we cannot (or do not want 
> to) allow the
> Subject class to subsume classes in the ontology in a direct fashion, 
> well then we need to
> replicate the whole ontology (that is excluding instances) and call it 
> a thesaurus. If
> this is smart (and possible) - I suppose that's what we should do.
> As far as the linguistic implementation is concerned, it doesn't make 
> any sense to me to
> have two versions of the ontology, one of which is used to express 
> subclasses of the
> Subject concept. As a matter of fact, we couln't even do it because of 
> name clashes. So we
> would ignore the thesaurus if the thesaurus is the same as (or 
> fragments of) the ontology.
> By the way, what is a good definition of a thesaurus?
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Patrizia Paggio
>
> Senior Researcher                                  phone: +45 3532 9072
> Center for Sprogteknologi                 fax:   +45 3532 9089
> Njalsgade 80                                                   email: 
> patrizia@cst.dk
> 2300-DK CPH S                                                   
> www.cst.dk/patrizia
>
> LREC04 Workshop on Multimodal Corpora
> http://lubitsch.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/MMCORPORA
>
> LREC04 OntoLex 2004
> http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontolex2004.html
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 13:18:20 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 22 March 2004 13:18:25 EST