W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Fwd: OWL issue: constraining members of a container in OWL:DL

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:03:50 +0000
Message-ID: <40334696.3000107@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>


I think the response should be couched in terms of OWL Full not OWL DL.
While OWL DL does not prohibit rdf:Seq, it does prohibit rdfs:member which 
is probably needed to do what the commentor wants.

In terms of the comment on RDF, I think we only really claim good 
interoperability between OWL Full and RDF. Between OWL DL and RDF some 
things work and some don't.

Jeremy



Jim Hendler wrote:

> 
> This came to the public webont comments list -- I would normally have 
> suggested that this go to the public discussion lists, but then I 
> noticed his comment at the bottom -- an LC comment to RDF was that they 
> should provide a mechanism to constrain the members of an rdf:seq.  The 
> RDF Core WG answered that OWL would be expected to provide something 
> like this, but didn't report that to our WG -- as a result, we didn't 
> address this -- I think we should write a more careful response - 
> probably directing him to the places in our reference where we discuss 
> the use of ordered lists in OWL -- anyone want to draft a response?  I 
> don't think it needs WG review, but in my opinion we shouldn't just blow 
> off this comment given its history.
>  Anyone want to take a swipe at it?
>  thanks
>  JH
> 
> 
>> X-Original-To: public-webont-comments@listhub.w3.org
>> Delivered-To: public-webont-comments@listhub.w3.org
>> Delivered-To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
>> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:34:12 -0500
>> Thread-Topic: OWL issue: constraining members of a container in OWL:DL
>> Thread-Index: AcP1pipViQt7CLW3R/mAGiTsuT4cxw==
>> From: "Stephane Fellah" <fellah@pcigeomatics.com>
>> To: <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
>> Subject: OWL issue: constraining members of a container in OWL:DL
>> X-Archived-At: 
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/8ED21571324EB145933ACCD22B86AC364AFA2B@bach.ncr.pcigeomatics.com 
>>
>> Resent-From: public-webont-comments@w3.org
>> X-Mailing-List: <public-webont-comments@w3.org> archive/latest/721
>> X-Loop: public-webont-comments@w3.org
>> Sender: public-webont-comments-request@w3.org
>> Resent-Sender: public-webont-comments-request@w3.org
>> List-Id: <public-webont-comments.w3.org>
>> List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>> List-Unsubscribe: 
>> <mailto:public-webont-comments-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:34:14 -0500 (EST)
>> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
>>     dormouse.cs.umd.edu
>> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0 tests=none autolearn=no 
>> version=2.60
>> X-Spam-Level:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am currently trying to define some rules to convert UML to OWL. For
>> property of cardinality n and for which order is important, I want to
>> use rdf:Seq. I would like to constraint the member of the rdf:Seq to a
>> specific type (such as xs:String or a particular Class).
>>
>> Example: Here how an Address is expressed in ISO 19115.
>>
>>
>> <rdf:RDF
>> xmlns:iso19115="http://www.pcigeomatics.com/ontology/iso/19115.owl#"
>>           xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >
>>  <rdf:Address rdf:nodeID="urn:pcigeomatics:hull-office">
>>     <iso19115:deliveryPoint>
>>       <rdf:Seq>
>>         <rdf:li>PCI Geomatics Inc</rdf:li>
>>         <rdf:li>490, Boulevard St Joseph</rdf:li>
>>         <rdf:li>Suite 400</rdf:li>
>>       </rdf:Seq>
>>     </iso19115:deliveryPoint>
>>     <iso19115:postalCode>J8Y  3Y7</iso19115:postalCode>
>>     <iso19115:city>Hull</iso19115:city>
>>     <iso19115:administrativeArea>Quebec</iso19115:administrativeArea>
>>     <iso19115:country>Canada</iso19115:country>
>>   </rdf:Address>
>> </rdf:RDF>
>>
>> The order of the deliveryPoint address is important in this case (think
>> about printing a label for the address).I would like to express in
>> OWL-DL that deliveryPoint property is rdf:Seq has take only xs:String or
>> rdfs:Literal for its member.
>>
>> It seems that it is not possible to do this in OWL-DL. Correct me if I
>> am wrong. I think this is major flaw in OWL-DL if it is not supported
>> because this scenario can occur many times.
>>
>> Note that this issue has been raised in RDFS discussion and has been
>> forwarded to the ontology WG. It seems that this issue has not been
>> addressed. Ref:
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-constraining-containers.
>>
>> Any suggestions to solve this problem are welcome.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Stephane Fellah
>> Senior Software Engineer
>>
>> PCI Geomatics
>> 490, Boulevard St Joseph
>> Hull, Quebec
>> Canada J8Y 3Y7
>> Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223
>> Fax 1 819 770 0098
>> Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com
>>
>>
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 06:04:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:03 GMT