Re: Additions to scope of OWL1.1

> We could use an ObjectProperty AND a Relationship class, but then we have
> no way to tell that a particular instance of the one is semantically
> equivalent to a particular instance of the other. It would require a.k.a.
> cross-over between equivalentClass and equivalentProperty.

Find below a small OWL1.1 ontology, indeed using reification
(quite similar to yours) but more constrained. What is missing ?
I am not sure about what you need/want to express
Could you be more explicit about your problem : "to tell that a particular
instance of the one is semantically equivalent to a particular instance of
the other" ?
I also asked for some extensions to n-ary relations at the OWL1.1 meeting.
as we also used reifications instead.
In my opinion this should be dealt in a future version, whatever 1.1 or 2.0,
or other
But we should provide clear examples of our strong needs of it.
So I completely join Bijan encouraging you "to write up your requirements
with lots of examples
and some idea of what you want it all to mean and submit it to  OWLED2007
(CFP coming soon!)."

Christine

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Involvment">
    <owl:equivalentClass>
      <owl:Class>
        <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
          <owl:Restriction>
            <owl:cardinality
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int"
            >1</owl:cardinality>
            <owl:valuesFrom rdf:resource="#InvolvedPerson"/>
            <owl:onProperty>
              <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="involved1"/>
            </owl:onProperty>
          </owl:Restriction>
          <owl:Restriction>
            <owl:onProperty>
              <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="involved2"/>
            </owl:onProperty>
            <owl:valuesFrom rdf:resource="#InvolvedPerson"/>
            <owl:cardinality
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int"
            >1</owl:cardinality>
          </owl:Restriction>
        </owl:intersectionOf>
      </owl:Class>
    </owl:equivalentClass>
  </owl:Class>

<owl:Class rdf:ID="InvolvedPerson">
    <owl:equivalentClass>
      <owl:Class>
        <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
          <owl:Class rdf:ID="Person"/>
          <owl:Restriction>
            <owl:onProperty>
              <owl:SymmetricProperty rdf:ID="isInvolved"/>
            </owl:onProperty>
            <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Person"/>
          </owl:Restriction>
        </owl:intersectionOf>
      </owl:Class>
    </owl:equivalentClass>
  </owl:Class>

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#involved1">
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Involvment"/>
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#InvolvedPerson"/>
  </owl:ObjectProperty>

  <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#involved2">
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Involvment"/>
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#InvolvedPerson"/>
  </owl:ObjectProperty>

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="isFather">
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Person"/>
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Person"/>
  </owl:ObjectProperty>

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="approve">
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Involvment"/>
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Person"/>
  </owl:ObjectProperty>

<owl:SymmetricProperty rdf:about="#isInvolved">
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Person"/>
    <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#isInvolved"/>
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Person"/>
  </owl:SymmetricProperty>

 <InvolvedPerson rdf:ID="Mary">
    <isInvolved>
      <InvolvedPerson rdf:ID="Pete">
        <isInvolved rdf:resource="#Mary"/>
      </InvolvedPerson>
    </isInvolved>
  </InvolvedPerson>

  <Involvment rdf:ID="Involvment_5">
    <involved1 rdf:resource="#Mary"/>
    <involved2 rdf:resource="#Pete"/>
  </Involvment>

  <Person rdf:ID="Joe">
    <isFather rdf:resource="#Mary"/>
    <approve rdf:resource="#Involvment_5"/>
  </Person>


----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Teijgeler
To: Parsia, Bijan
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:55 PM
Subject: Additions to scope of OWL1.1


Bijan,

Is the scope definition of OWL1.1 closed, or are proposals for additions
still possible?

In the world of ISO 15926 we are struggling with the problem that in RDF we
cannot model something like:

    :Joe isFatherOf :Mary
    :Mary isInvolvedWith :Pete
    :Joe approves [:Mary isInvolvedWith :Pete]

Often it is necessary to say something about a relationship between two
individuals (relations involving relations, like above example), with the
requirement to constrain that in an OWL schema.

ISO 15926 uses classes for (binary) relationships. These classes have two
properties, the ranges of which coincide with the domain and range of an
owl:ObjectProperty. For example:

    :Mary isInvolvedWith :Pete

maps to:

    <Involvement rdf:ID="ME329800">
        <involved1 rdf:resource="#Mary"/>
        <involved2 rdf:resource="#Pete"/>
    </Involvement>

where any subsequent approval of this relationship can be done like:

    <Approval rdf:ID="ME324199">
        <approved rdf:resource="#ME329800"/>
        <approver rdf:resource="#Joe"/>
    </Approval>

We could use an ObjectProperty AND a Relationship class, but then we have no
way to tell that a particular instance of the one is semantically equivalent
to a particular instance of the other. It would require a.k.a. cross-over
between equivalentClass and equivalentProperty.

This may be way out of line for the OWL1.1 exercise. In that case I
apologize for taking your time.

Regards,
Hans
____________________
OntoConsult
Hans Teijgeler
ISO 15926 specialist
Netherlands
+31-72-509 2005
www.InfowebML.ws
hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/547 - Release Date: 22-Nov-06
17:41