- From: Piero Bonatti <pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 11:22:07 +0200
- To: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>, public-dpvcg@w3.org
Just one further comment on the representation of [1]. Victor wrote:
On 01/04/20 18:33, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel wrote:
> the property hasProcessing has dpv:Processing as range. From here,
> reasoners will infer that dpv:Collect is of type dpv:Processing, and
> hence a classs individual. Thus, if I am not wrong, dpv:Collect will be
> both class and instance. This was directly forbidden in OWL1, but
> accepted in OWL2 [2] ("punning"). So it will be ok but maybe not so
> appealing.
If I remember the example correctly, the value of hasProcessing is
[a dpv:Collect]. So the range specification for hasProcessing only says
that the type of `a' is dpv:Processing.
It says nothing about the class dpv:Collect. The fact that Collect is a
subclass of Processing must be asserted in the ontology.
Best regards,
Piero
Received on Friday, 3 April 2020 09:27:14 UTC