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

But that says that the value of dc:creator is the String "PhD Thesis" not 
the class PhdThesis, which is what Bernard asked for.


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/



Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> 
Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
03/22/2004 01:17 PM

To
Christopher Welty/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, SWBPD 
<public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a practical question








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
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
>