W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2010

Re: MuSim Ontology problems (was Re: Share, Like Ontology)

From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:11:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4C1654B4.6030306@elbklang.net>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>
CC: Kurt J <kurtjx@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com
Hi,

>>
>> I do not really understand the need for rdfs:Class:
>> owl:Class is already defined with rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class (same thing
>> for the properties). So its is a transitivity issue and it depends on
>> the used reasoner to resolve that issue.
>
> owl:Class is defined as a subclass of rdfs:Class *in the OWL
> specifications*. The RDF/RDFS specification does not say anything about
> owl:Class. So, from a pure RDFS perspective, owl:Class has as much
> meaning as, e.g., xyz:abc. The fact that someone defines *somewhere*
> that xyz:abc is a subclass of rdfs:Class is irrelevant from a pure RDFS
> system point of view. As I said in my example, a SPARQL query would not
> be able to retrieve the OWL classes or properties that are not directly
> asserted as RDFS classes or properties (unless the SPARQL engine
> implements part of the OWL spec, which is rarely the case).
>
> Now, that's a small issue but there is no disadvantage of putting the
> additional types, as far as I know.
>

This implies for me that I have to add rdfs:class to every owl:class 
based definition of every ontology. That's makes no real sense for me, 
sorry. It's somehow a step backward.


> Yet, it's easy to make a programme that deals equally well with all
> these values, whereas it is difficult to ensure that everybody will use
> the three datatypes mentioned in the range assertion.

That's why we've defined that restriction, because the use of these 
datatypes is well defined in XSD and they are support from the standard 
programming languages, which might process it as this kind of datatype.

>
> In the absence of range assertion, such values as:
>
> ex:sim :distance "very similar" .
> ex:sim :distance "+++"^^xsd:string .
>

This definition is somehow unspecific, because this could only exists 
with a specific definition of these values, which I could at least map 
to a numeric value, e.g. scale 1-5. I think the numeric value is all I 
need, because values of sim:distance and sim:weight are somehow 
technical and need an extra translation step for human reading. So I 
could define the specific human readable term in different languages 
(English, Spain, French, ...).

Cheers,

Bob
Received on Monday, 14 June 2010 16:12:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:36 GMT