W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Placing a comment on a relationship?!

From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:19:45 +0100
Message-ID: <16557.51633.184746.164054@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
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?


Received on Friday, 21 May 2004 05:20:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:51 UTC