Re: owl:sameAs temptation

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