W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Why do you want to do that?

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:48:01 -0400
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Message-Id: <2CDEB9F4-BD08-4264-9961-1FCC0E1B7E3D@acm.org>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Adam Pease" <adampease@earthlink.net>, "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>

On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:

> I finally got a few minutes to read OWL Guide 3.1.3
> I read that section as supporting my position.  The word "context"  
> is mentioned
> several times, with the implication that X ismem IndividualSet; in  
> one context,
> and X ismem ClassSet; in a different context.

Dick--

I originally cited section 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide to answer a question  
you posed in your original message:  why someone might want an  
individual to also be a class.  Specifically:

"The wine ontology as it currently exists would require the ability to  
treat classes as instances in order to support such an interpretation.  
Note that OWL Full permits such expressivity, allowing us to treat an  
instance of a wine variety simultaneously as a class whose instances  
are bottles of wine."

and also

"Adding that the wine produced in the year 2000 is considered a  
vintage poses a challenge, because we don't have the ability to  
represent a subset of a given wine individual. This vintage is not a  
new variety of wine, it is a special subset of the wine - that  
produced in the year 2000. An option would be to use OWL Full and  
treat the wine instances as classes with subclasses (subsets) denoting  
vintages. "

Other examples (outside the OWL Guide) of why it can be useful to  
treat an individual as a class (or vice-versa) can also be cited.   
Perhaps you could clarify your position you think OWL Guide 3.1.3  
supports?  It doesn't seem to support a position (if that's your  
position) that no one would want to do that.

--Frank

>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. X  type  Y;  X  subClassOf  Z;
>>> Another neat property: X is an individual and a class.
>>> Now I can ... What?  I don't know.
>>> Why do you want to do that?
>>
>> How about the example in Section 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide?
>>
>> --Frank
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 14:48:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:24 GMT