Re: Questions/Concerns about the Data Cube Vocabulary

Hi Mark,

On 10 Jul 2013, at 13:26, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
> In OWL, properties and classes are disjoint, so…

This is a restriction of OWL 1 DL. It is not a restriction in RDF Schema, OWL 1 Full, or OWL 2. Reasoners built for any of these languages shouldn't have any problems with these assertions.

Data Cube expresses both data (qb:Observation and friends) and schemata (qb:DataStructureDefinition and friends). Thus, it is a metamodel. Metamodels like Data Cube cannot be expressed in OWL DL, and using DL reasoners on such metamodels is unlikely to provide useful results, as far as I can tell -- but I may have missed your use case.

In general, I think the benefits of using reasoners on data cubes are likely to be limited, due to the large size and shallow semantics of such data structures.

Best,
Richard



> it looks like the set of statements above violate this rule in that DimensionProperty is declared as a Class (which itself is at least grammatically odd) and then refArea is declared as both an rdf:Property *and* a DimensionProperty(Class)...  This situation would make reasoners very unhappy!  There are numerous examples of this in the data cube vocabulary.
> 
> Are my concerns justified, or am I mis-interpreting the vocabulary?  I realize that there is nothing *wrong* with the structure, I just have concerns about using it as a sem-web vocabulary; it would be a shame if we weren't able to do reasoning over data cubes!
> 
> I'd be very grateful if someone from the working group would engage me in this discussion :-)
> 
> Best wishes!
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Mark D. Wilkinson
> Isaac Peral Senior Researcher, Biological Informatics
> Centro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas UPM-INIA (CBGP)
> Campus Montegancedo,
> Autopista M-40 (Km 38)
> 28223-Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid)
>

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 12:27:59 UTC