Re: DPV semantics: how to specify values?

Dear Piero, all,

I think you are not right. Asserting this triple:

_:dataRequest dpv:hasProcessing dpv:Collect.

leads to dpv:Collect to be classified by any reasoner as an individual 
of dpv:Processing, which is what I claimed in my email. This is so by 
virtue of entailment number three of RDF 1.1 Semantics. 
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#patterns-of-rdfs-entailment-informative 
and given the triple in red asserted by the DPV ontology:

    dpv:hasProcessing a rdfs:Property ;
         dct:created "2019-04-04"^^xsd:date ;
         dct:creator "Axel Polleres, Javier Ferenandez, Harshvardhan J.
    Pandit, Mark Lizar, Bud Bruegger" ;
         dct:date-accepted "2019-04-05"^^xsd:date ;
         dct:description "This property associates a data processing
    category with an instance of legal data handling or consent"@en ;
         rdfs:comment "We replicate all the properties except Legalbasis
    of personal data handling for consent, to declare what kinds of
    personal data handling are consented to" ;
         rdfs:domain [ owl:unionOf ( dpv:PersonalDataHandling
    dpv:Consent ) ] ;
         rdfs:isDefinedBy "s" ;
    rdfs:range dpv:Processing .

Whenver you add this:

_:dataRequest dpv:hasProcessing dpv:Collect.

you are making dpv:Collect to be a class instance of dpv:Processing.  
Hence, I accept as formally valid the way of modelling you propose, but 
do not recommend it. I still recommend

_:dataRequest dpv:hasProcessing [a dpv:Collect ].

In any case, I am just an observer here :)

Regards,
Víctor

El 03/04/2020 a las 11:22, Piero Bonatti escribió:
> 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
>


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 910672914
Skype: vroddon3
http://cosasbuenas.es