Re: OWL, rules and reasoning?

Hi Hugh;

first off, thanks a bunch for taking the time reading my messages as 
well as sharing your insights and explanations on that, greatly 
appreciated! :)


Am 12.07.2013 11:55, schrieb Hugh Glaser:
[...]
> "Document" "belongsTo" "Project" remain as a string. Strings can
> bring in lots of confusion, and should be restricted to
> well-understood contexts.
[...]
> So in transforming DBs to RDF, my routine pattern is to
> generate URIs for most strings.

Well, overally, these two things basically confirm something I have 
already been pondering. So far, coming from a world of working with 
either key/value stores or RDBMSs (partially abusing those by again 
mostly using string data and having most of the rules enforcing 
consistency kept in business logic - which is a pain more than just 
once), I am pretty familiar with both using strings and the confusions 
that mostly will arise from that. So I'll try going down that road 
getting rid of that confusion as far as possible.



> I do realise that this doesn't actually answer your question, as you
> are trying model, not transform! But it might help:-)

It definitely does. In this situation, boundary between transforming and 
modeling is rather fuzzy anyway, and though at times I feel comfortable 
working with OWL and ontologies on a "greenfield", there's a lack of 
experience in this, and right here with an actually existing (relational 
or key/value) data set at hand, there's always the danger of falling 
back to common, convenient patterns of doing things, which might not at 
all be a good idea.


Actually I spent most part of last nite working with SWRL rules in OWL 
trying to define these things I have in mind as rules inside my OWL 
ontologies, but the results weren't really the way I wanted them to be. 
So maybe a better modeling might be a generally better way of resolving 
this problem. I'll see where it gets me. :)

Thanks again and all the best,
Kristian

Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 10:28:11 UTC