W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: To what should generic names be given in DL?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:48:25 +0200
To: Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <1186768105.14650.109.camel@localhost>

Dear Yoshio, 
while I'm certainly not knowledgeable in DL, maybe the question could be
posed like this: what has that label, "doggy"? Is it the class or its
individuals?
It would seem that at least intuitively it would be the individuals.
This could play in favor of your approach with the class Dog having that
restriction that all its instances have the two labels.

But I can't pretend this is more than a momentary thought...
Hope it helps,
Jacek

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 16:28 +0900, Yoshio Fukushige wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I'm building an ontology, but am facing difficulties
> in making it in DL (in appropriate way).
> 
> Here is one of the questions:
> 
> "In DL, to what should the generic names be given?"
> 
> Are there any good practices ?
> 
> Many thanks in advance.
> 
> --------In short from here -------
> Should such values be given to the Classes
> as the values of annotation properties?
> 
> or
> 
> Should such values be given to individuals
> as the values of object type properties?
> 
> or
> 
> Can such values be given to (shared)
> concepts, which are individuals, 
> corresponding to the Class?
> (as the values of object type properties)
> 
> --------In shoer till here -------
> 
> 
> -------- Details from here ------
> 
> Please think about, for example, my dog, Spot.
> 
> It has its own (proper) name, "Spot".
> 
> But how can we express the fact that it is of the type of the animals
> called "dog" in English and the type is also called (informally) "doggy"
> (so "dog" is preferred as the name of the type) in the framework of owl DL?
> 
> If we don't stick to DL, one can easily say
> 
> --------
> my:Spot a ex:Dog;
> 	ex:name "Spot";
> 	.
> 
> ex:Dog a owl:Class;
> 	rdfs:subClassOf ex:Animal;
> 	ex:prefLabel "dog";
> 	ex:altLabel "doggy";
> 	.
> --------
> 
> Here, I introduced the properties ex:prefLabel and ex:altLabel
> after skos:prefLabel and skos:altLabel.
> (prefix @skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>.)
> 
> I avoid using the original skos:prefLabel and skos:altLabel,
> being unsure if the Class (ex:Dog) can be a skos:Concept.
> 
> But the description above drives us out of DL, 
> for the subject of the ex:prefLabel and ex:altLabel there,
> ex:Dog, is a owl:Class.
> 
> By asserting the two properties being owl:AnnotationProperty's,
> then it would remain in DL.
> 
> But is a name an "annotation" property of a thing/class?
> I feel uneasy in thinking so.
> 
> One idea is to put the labels to Spot, the individual dog, not to the
> Class, ex:Dog and assert them as owl:DatatypeProperty's.
> 
> --------
> my:Spot a ex:Dog;
> 	ex:name "Spot";
> 	ex:prefTypeLabel "dog";
> 	ex:altTypeLabel "doggy";
> 	.
> 
> ex:Dog a owl:Class;
> 	rdfs:subClassOf ex:Animal,
> 	[a owl:Restriction;
> 	 owl:onProperty ex:prefTypeLabel;
> 	 owl:hasValue "dog"],
> 	[a owl:Restriction;
> 	 owl:onProperty ex:altTypeLabel;
> 	 owl:hasValue "doggy"];
> 	.
> 
> --------
> 
> Here I used ex:prefTypeLabel and ex:altTypeLabel
> instead of ex:prefLabel and ex:altLabel respectively,
> to make clear neither "dog" nor "doggy" is not Spot's name,
> Spot's name is "Spot" (and possibly "Spotty").
> 
> But I still feel uneasy in thinking it is my Spot
> that carries such properties.
> Such properties should, I think, be given to something
> more abstract than the individuals.
> 
> Another idea, which I prefer, is 
> to introduce a Dog concept, and give it the names,
> and let each dog to carry that concept as a ,say,
> concept.
> 
> -------
> my:Spot a ex:Dog;
> 	ex:name "Spot";
> 	ex:hasConcept ex:DogConcept;
> 	.
> 
> ex:DogConcept a owl:Thing;
> 	a skos:Concept;
> 	skos:prefLabel "dog";
> 	skos:altLabel "doggy";
> 	.
> 
> ex:Dog a owl:Class;
> 	rdfs:subClassOf 
> 	 [a	owl:Restriction;
> 	  owl:onProperty ex:hasConcept;
> 	  owl:hasValue ex:DogConcept];
> 	.
> ------
> 
> But do you think it OK (or appropriate)
> letting the concept carry the (Class) names?
> 
> -------- Details till here ------
> 
> Best,
> Yoshio Fukushige
> fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 08:03:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT