- From: Tim Finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:28:56 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org, public-semweb-ui@w3.org
Toby Inkster wrote: > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:59+0200, Bernhard Schandl wrote: >> However many "newbies" to RDF and ontologies are confused by this, >> because the triple >> foaf:Agent foaf:holdsAccount foaf:OnlineAccount . >> is actually not contained in the ontology. > What needs to be communicated is that: > [ a foaf:Agent ] foaf:holdsAccount [ a foaf:OnlineAccount ] . > instead. Those triples are not actually in the ontology itself, but will > be found (or at least implied) in any instance data that makes use of > the foaf:holdsAccount property. The N3 statement '[a foaf:Agent] foaf:holdsAccount [a foaf:OnlineAccount]' seems like an intuitive way, at least to this native English speaker, to say that the domain and range of foaf:holdsAccount are foaf:Agent and foaf:OnlineAccount, respectively. I even like it. But it doesn't really say this, does it? Running the statement through CWM produces: <rdf:Description> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent"/> <holdsAccount rdf:parseType="Resource"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/OnlineAccount"/> </holdsAccount> </rdf:Description> Maybe I am missing some of the nuances of N3 and RDF, but I think this defines two anonymous individuals, one which is a foaf:person (among possibly other things) and another which is a foaf:OnlineAccount (among possibly other things) and asserts that a foaf:holdsAccount relations exist between them. I don't think this says anything about the domain and range of foaf:holdsAccount. If we interpret this as OWL, I guess we can infer that the domain and range are subsumed by owl:Thing. Or maybe I am missing something. Tim
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 17:29:44 UTC