W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2005

RE: Class and Thing with same ID

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:57:04 +0100
To: <jeremy@miko.hk>, "'Richard Newman'" <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>, "'Danny Ayers'" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Semantic Web Forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001401c5f737$871d3f30$6c7ba8c0@hans>
Hi Jeremy, Richard, and Danny,

 

Thanks for your responses! Yes Danny, we have no other choice than working
in OWL Full, come hell or high water, as the British say.

 

I'm struggling with the following:

 

In ISO 15926 we have a Reference Data Library (OWLites would call it a
Vocabulary). In this Vocabulary we will have tens of thousands of
strongly-typed owl:Classes.

 

We also will have triple stores filled with owl:Things, representing the
lifecycle information of, for example, a particular factory. The Template
instances (N-ary relations, see [1]) we use for the representation of that
information refer to those Reference Data. 

 

BUT, we may not refer to what we already have in that vocabulary. Since
those templates are owl:Things we MUST refer to other owl:Things, not to
owl:Classes.

 

For this unfortunate fact alone we must instantiate all Classes in that
vocabulary, that's why I raised the question. Perhaps I should name those
instances by suffixing them with '-T' or so, unless you have a better idea.

 

Kind regards,

Hans

 

[1]
http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n-aryRelations-2nd-WD.h
tml

_______________________ 

Hans Teijgeler

ISO 15926 specialist

www.InfowebML.ws

hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl

phone +31-72-509 2005      

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 10:51 AM
To: Richard Newman
Cc: Hans Teijgeler; Semantic Web Forum
Subject: Re: Class and Thing with same ID

 

The W3C Validator [1] is handy for checking syntax.

 

(I've no idea whether the syntax is ok ;-)

 

Re. the model, yes it is allowed to have a a resource be both a Class

and a Thing, but as Richard says, takes you from the OWL DL space into

OWL Full. That may be what you want, but in my (very limited)

experience the majority of OWL Full ontologies can be tweaked into

being OWL DL (I suspect leading to a more accurate model in most

cases).

 

The advantage is practical - there are several sound & complete OWL DL

reasoners available, it's more hit & miss with OWL Full. There's an

online demo of the Pellet engine via [2], handy for quick checks of

consistency and which OWL species is in use.

 

Cheers,

Danny.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

[2] http://www.mindswap.org/2003/pellet/index.shtml

 

 

 

 

--

 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 11:57:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:08 GMT