- From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:19:45 +0100
- To: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Richard Lennox <listserve@richardlennox.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Adrian, Adrian Walker writes: > > > The problem is that RDF/OWL is by design a machine-oriented notation, and > one in which it is easy even for expert people to make mistakes when they > try to code 'raw'. > > For example, a now apparently defunct web site (interprise.com) last year > gave an example that can be summarized as > > some-subject is related by rdf:type to some-subclass > that-subclass is related by rdfs:subClassOf to some-object > -------------------------------------------------------------- > that-subject is related by rdf:type to that-object > > The rule looks reasonable, and on the data that interprise supplied, its > conclusions were in line with normal intuition** > > However, if you plug in "Clyde", "elephant" and "species", you get " Clyde > is related by rdf:type to species" . So presumably, the rule is wrong as > it stands. > Wouldn't you use: Clyde rdf:type elephant elephant rdf:type species to model this situation (elephant being a member of the set species rather than a subset of the set species). I agree that if you use terms that don't mesh semantically with what you're trying to articulate then the owl rules create further untruths, but I don't see how that's a problem with OWL. Am I missing the point? Cheers, Phil
Received on Friday, 21 May 2004 05:20:57 UTC