- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:13:26 -0500
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- CC: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Bernard, thank you for pointing out the Geonames example and mapping. I was too focused on connecting the Things that I've overlooked equivalence of Classes. What you suggest is a nice way to go without having to make bold claims about the actual equality of the classes that the two thing belong to. Revisiting http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#equivalentClass-def now, "Real class equality can only be expressed with the owl:sameAs construct" also rings well. -Sarven On 12-03-07 04:37 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote: > Hi Sarven > > You might be interested by the way I've mapped the Geonames feature > codes, which are modelled as instances of a subclass of skos:Concept > (hence OWL individuals) to equivalent classes in other ontologies. See > [1] and [2]. > > The rationale is that most of the time when you assert that a owl:Thing > T is "equivalent to" some owl:Class C, it means that being of rdf:type C > is equivalent to have T as a value of some "typing" property. For > example being an instance of the class "BlueThing" is equivalent to > having "Blue" as value of some "hasColor" property. This can be modelled > as in [2] using a owl:hasValue" restriction, avoiding the owl:sameAs > temptation and keep all your ontology in safe OWL-DL land, this way : > > <owl:Class rdf:about="http://example.org/BlueThing"> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Blue Thing</rdfs:label> > <owl:equivalentClass> > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://example.org/hasColor"/> > <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="http://example.org/Blue"/> > </owl:Restriction> > </owl:equivalentClass> > </owl:Class> > > <skos:Concept rdf:about="http://example.org/Blue"> > <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">Blue</skos:prefLabel> > <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="fr">Bleu</skos:prefLabel> > </skos:Concept> > > Hope this helps > > Bernard > > [1] http://www.geonames.org/ontology/ontology_v3.01.rdf > [2] http://www.geonames.org/ontology/mappings_v3.01.rdf > > > Le 7 mars 2012 07:43, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca > <mailto:info@csarven.ca>> a écrit : > > Hi, > > I'm sure this is talked somewhere, I'd love a pointer if you know any: > > I often see resources of type owl:Class get paired with resources of > type owl:Thing using owl:sameAs. As far as I understand, this is > incorrect since domain and range of owl:sameAs should be owl:Thing. > > I'm tempted to change my resource that is a skos:Concept > skos:exactMatch'ed with a resource of type owl:Thing, and use > owl:sameAs. Sort of like "everyone else is doing it, it should be > okay", and "don't need to fear the thought police". > > However, I don't wish to do that with a clear conscience, hence, I'd > appreciate it if anyone can shed some light here for me and help me > understand to make an informed decision based on reason (no pun > intended). > > Related to this, I was wondering whether it makes sense to claim a > resource to be of type owl:Class as well as of type owl:Thing, where > may be appropriate, or one could get away with it e.g., a country. > If this is okay, I imagine it is okay to use owl:sameAs for the > subject at hand and point to yet another thing. > > Thanks all. > > -Sarven > > > > > -- > *Bernard Vatant > * > Vocabularies & Data Engineering > Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 > Skype : bernard.vatant > Linked Open Vocabularies <http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov> > > -------------------------------------------------------- > *Mondeca***** > 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France > www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/> > Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews> >
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 16:13:58 UTC