W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: TEST: 5 of 7: was Re: Revisiting AllDisjoint

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:28:23 +0100
Message-ID: <3F1FDEF6.5050701@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Jim:
 >
 > Jeremy - the page http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/~uetz/families/taxa.html



Ian Horrocks wrote:

> 
> I wasn't able to run the test (I don't yet have the datatype reasoner
> working), but it doesn't look like it would work, because
> Amphisbaenians etc are not said to be reptiles and so would not
> inherit the cardinality constraint on the reptile-name property.
> 
> Also, I'm not an expert on reptiles (not this kind of reptile anyway),
> but I guess that "Sauria" is not a reptile, but a family or genus (or
> some such?) of reptile. The proposed datatype idiom has to be used
> carefully in such cases because if there is a hierarchy with
> disjointness at each level, e.g., if there were sub-classes of
> Serpentes such as "Viper" and "Cobra" (bad modelling, I know, but
> let's ignore that for now), then to make these disjoint you must use a
> different property than the one used to make Sauria and Serpentes
> themselves disjoint (otherwise the ontology would be inconsistent).
> 
> I would suggest to either use reptile species in the example, or to
> change the name of the property to something like "genus-name".
> 


I updated the test as you suggested, ading the subClassOf triples, and 
using "family-name" and things that were reptile family's (according to the 
above webpage - they all in "-dae")

I also increased the N to 12 which is break even point (78 triples for each).

The pages are checking in at this moment.

Jeremy

(Correction the formula is 6+6*N)
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 09:29:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT