- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:28:14 +0200
- To: "Monika Solanki <monika" <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
- Cc: semanticweb <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-ws@w3.org, www-ws-request@w3.org
Hi Monika, conceptually there should be no problem
to mix RDF instance data and OWL ontologies.
In my experience I even mix it with log: and math:
formulae (using N3) to find proofs etc...
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Monika Solanki
<monika@dmu.ac To: www-ws@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, semanticweb
.uk> <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>
Sent by: cc:
www-ws-request Subject: A problem with OWL Validator
@w3.org
2003-06-15
12:56 PM
Hi,
I have an OWL file, in which I have included some instances as well. When I
parse the file without the instances, it does not give me any error,
however when I do it with instances, it gives me loads of warning like,
Implicit Property, Undefined Resource, Invalid namespace. I fail to
understand if my ontology is wrongly written or is it wrong to include
instances in the same file. Has anyone come across such errors before.
Please Help.
Thanks
Monika
Roger L. Costello wrote:
Jos De_Roo wrote:
we tend to use RDF interpretation properties for that
and math: properties and N3 conversion rules such as eg
{?X eg:length-in ?Y} => {?X eg:length-cm (?Y 2.54).math:product}.
{?X eg:length-cm ?Y} => {?X eg:length-in (?Y
2.54).math:quotient}.
[snip]
Hi Jos,
Does this have an XML syntax? My interest is in how to express the
mathematical relationships using an XML syntax. /Roger
"Roger L. Costello"
<costello@mitre.org> To:
www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sent by: cc:
robin.berjon@expway.fr, "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
www-rdf-interest-requ Subject:
Proposed extensions to OWL?
est@w3.org
2003-06-14 01:20 PM
Hi Folks,
Yesterday I sent out a message asking about technologies to
express
mathematical relationships. Robin Berjon responded with a very
inte
resting idea. I would like to get your thoughts on it, and see
if
collectively we can come up with something cool.
First I will show you a slightly modified version of Robin's
proposal,
then I will show Robin's original proposal.
Robin's Idea Slightly Modified
The idea is to extend OWL and base the solution on xPath.
Suppose that I would like to state that these two properties are
equivalent via a conversion factor:
length-in, length-cm
i.e., length in inches, and length in centimeters
The conversion factor is:
length-in = length-cm / 2.54
length-cm = length-in * 2.54
With today's OWL here is how you would define these properties:
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="length-in">
<rdfs:range rdf:resourse="&xsd;decimal"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="length-cm">
<rdfs:range rdf:resourse="&xsd;de
cimal"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>
The proposal is to extend OWL to allow you to assert that these
two
properties are equivalent by the above conversion factor. Here's
how it
might look:
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="length-in">
<owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="#length-cm"
owl-x:conversionFactor="current() *
2.54"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resourse="&xsd;decimal"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="length-cm">
<owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="#length-in"
owl-x:conversionFactor="current() /
2.54"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resourse="&xsd;decimal"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>
where:
owl-x is an OWL eXtension namespace,
current() is the xPath function referring to the current node.
Now let me show you Robin's idea:
Robin's idea is also
to base the solution on xPath. Here's what Robin
said:
"For instance:
<foo:PropertyEquivalence from='measure:inch'
to='measure:cm'
convert='$in_1 * 2.54'/>
<foo:PropertyEquivalence from='measure:cm'
to='measure:in'
convert='$in_1 div 2.54'/>
would allow you to declare that the following are equivalent:
<geo:Distance>
<measure:inch>2</measure:inch>
</geo:Distance>
<geo:Distance>
<measure:cm>5.08</measure:cm>
</geo:Distance>
You could allow for multiple inputs to your binding:
<foo:PropertyEquivalence
from='size:width/measure:meter
size:length/measure:meter'
to='size:surface/measure:squareMeter'
convert='$in_1 * $in_2'/>
and perhaps equivalentize, dep
ending on whether it makes sense in that
context:
<flat:Bedroom>
<size:width><measure:meter>4</measure:meter></size:width>
<size:length><measure:meter>5</measure:meter></size:length>
</flat:Bedroom>
<flat:Bedroom>
<size:surface>
<measure:squareMeter>20</measure:squareMeter>
</size:surface>
</flat:Bedroom>
so that given the first you could still query for flat:Bedrooms
that
are larger than 20sqm.
You may need to throw in stuff from EXSLT Math if you want more
than
XPath provides."
....
Okay, those are the two ideas thus far. What do you think? Feel
free
to add your own ideas. If this whole approach is bad, feel free
to say
so. The intent here is to brainstorm. If these conversion rules
are
better stated using another technology (e.g., RuleML) please say
so.
/Roger
--
>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<
Monika Solanki
De Montfort University
Software Technology Research Laboratory
Hawthorn building, H00.18
The Gateway.
Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170
email: monika@dmu.ac.uk
web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika/
>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<>**<
"NOTE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer"
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2003 08:28:32 UTC