Re: DPV semantics: how to specify values?

Hi All

it may be an established pattern but I think those blank nodes in
option 1 are very ugly. Don't they also make the SPARQL queries
more convoluted? That is not a good way to sell adoption of the vocab IMO.

I would personally like to be able to refer to a set of instances
for many things that are currently defined as classes in DPV.
(perhaps a SKOS model? (I know that causes OWL issues too!))

For example when you are defining a Register of Processing Activities
you may not want to refer to a specific instance of processing but to
a type of processing that may be carried out in the future.

In the past when modelling a taxonomy like this in OWL I have created
and used a set of instances, like an enumerated type. I am open to further
education on the best way to achieve this in RDFS/OWL.

Finally, the DPV classes are defined as RDFS classes rather than
OWL classes anyway, does this not mean we can just treat classes as
objects and not care what OWL "thinks"?
(and if we do care about OWL, why are they not defined as OWL classes?)

rgds
rob

Dr Rob Brennan
Assistant Professor, School of Computing, Dublin City University
Chair of MA in Data Protection and Privacy Law, DCU
Funded Investigator, ADAPT Centre
Coordinator, ELITE-S H2020 MCSA Cofund
Visiting Academic, Centre for Innovative Human Systems, Trinity College
Dublin


On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 10:27, Piero Bonatti <pieroandrea.bonatti@unina.it>
wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
*

*Séanadh Ríomhphoist/Email Disclaimer*

*Tá an ríomhphost seo agus aon 
chomhad a sheoltar leis faoi rún agus is lena úsáid ag an seolaí agus sin 
amháin é. Is féidir tuilleadh a léamh anseo.  
<https://sites.google.com/view/seanadh-riomhphoist>*

*This e-mail and any 
files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for use 
by the addressee. Read more here. 
<https://sites.google.com/view/dcu-email-disclaimer>*



*

-- 

 <https://www.facebook.com/DCU/> <https://twitter.com/DublinCityUni> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/dublin-city-university> 
<https://www.instagram.com/dublincityuniversity/?hl=en> 
<https://www.youtube.com/user/DublinCityUniversity>