- From: Markus Stocker <markus.stocker@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:25:51 +0300
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Hi Dave, Thanks for comments. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Markus, > > > On 05/06/13 18:17, Markus Stocker wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The Example 4 [1] demonstrates how to attach a component at the data >> set level. However, qb:DataSet is a class and, as far as I understand, >> this statement is thus beyond OWL DL. Am I correct that this can be >> circumvented by using the Punning feature of OWL 2 DL in adding the >> assertion owl:NamedIndividual(qb:DataSet)? > > > The Data Cube ontology is not OWL 2 DL in several ways and attachment > declarations is certainly one of them. Could it be of interest to document in what ways the ontology is not OWL 2 DL? Cheers, markus > However, I don't think punning is quite enough here. I believe the range > declaration of qb:componentAttachment would still be problematic. So one > would need to make qb:componentAttachment an explicitly declared annotation > property anyway in which case you wouldn't need to depend on punning. > > Dave > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Markus, > > > On 05/06/13 18:17, Markus Stocker wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The Example 4 [1] demonstrates how to attach a component at the data >> set level. However, qb:DataSet is a class and, as far as I understand, >> this statement is thus beyond OWL DL. Am I correct that this can be >> circumvented by using the Punning feature of OWL 2 DL in adding the >> assertion owl:NamedIndividual(qb:DataSet)? > > > The Data Cube ontology is not OWL 2 DL in several ways and attachment > declarations is certainly one of them. > > However, I don't think punning is quite enough here. I believe the range > declaration of qb:componentAttachment would still be problematic. So one > would need to make qb:componentAttachment an explicitly declared annotation > property anyway in which case you wouldn't need to depend on punning. > > Dave > >
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 09:26:17 UTC