W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

RE: Database schema in OWL

From: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:34:59 +0200
Message-Id: <p06110402bcebd16aee1c@[]>
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, "Daniela F. Brauner" <dani@les.inf.puc-rio.br>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Cc: seanb@cs.man.ac.uk, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk

Unfortunately, the draft has not been edited yet as a project report. 
BTW, I have uploaded a preliminary version to the W3C archive:



At 13:45 -0700 7-06-2004, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>Aldo, the link to wonderweb is to the home page. Can you say how to get
>to the use case?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it]
>Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:34 AM
>To: Daniela F. Brauner; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>Cc: seanb@cs.man.ac.uk; horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Database schema in OWL
>Thanks for your question, Daniela. In the WonderWeb project
>http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org we have built a use case to show
>good translation practices from db (conceptual or logical) schemas to
>ontologies (also with help of automatic tools). We should put an
>online report asap about that. See below for an example.
>At 12:04 -0300 7-06-2004, Daniela F. Brauner wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>Can someone help me with description of a simple database schema to
>>What is the best way to describe it??
>>Imagine that we have these simple database: (P.S.:assume # to represent
>>and & to FK)
>>Students (#id,name,&courseId)
>The problem with these logical schemas is that some elements are not
>relevant from an ontological viewpoint, but they concern database
>functioning. Identifiers, specially as fk, are typically so.
>A good practice for your schema would be (quickly quickly):
>Class(Students partial
>   restriction(hasCourse someValuesFrom Course))
>Class(Course partial
>   restriction(hasDept someValuesFrom Department))
>   domain(Students)
>   range(Course))
>   domain(Course)
>   range(Department))
>In other words, identifers that are just there for indexing purpose
>are not really "ontological" (although you can obviously represent
>them in OWL as restrictions on datatype properties), while names can
>be used as class names. Moreover, whenever there is a clear link
>between a "name" and a fk, then you can introduce a property that has
>appropriate domain and range restrictions, and use it to create one
>or more someValuesFrom restriction(s).
>There are other practices concerning the way properties and classes
>should introduced as subclasses or subproperties of existing,
>reference ontologies, but this goes beyond what you're asking for.
>Good luck
>>Thanks a lot!
>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004
>Aldo Gangemi
>Research Scientist
>Laboratory for Applied Ontology
>Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
>National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
>Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
>Tel: +390644161535
>Fax: +3906824737

Aldo Gangemi
Research Scientist
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
Tel: +390644161535
Fax: +3906824737
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 16:35:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC