- From: Ibach, Brandon L <brandon.l.ibach@lmco.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:56:10 -0400
- To: "Gocev, Pavel" <pavel.gocev@ipk.fraunhofer.de>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
- Message-id: <0D237077B37CD943A64396032B6569270377018A@EMSS04M23.us.lmco.com>
Pavel, I'm not sure I quite understand your example, but if your requirement is that, for example, you need attach different information to the relationship between Component_C1 and Product_A (either the number 4 or four separate Items) than to the relationship between that same Component_C1 and Product_B (again, either the number 3 or three separate items), then I would lean toward using the "class as relation" model suggested in the SWBP Note (pattern 1, covering use cases 1, 2 and 3). If, by OWL 1.1, you mean the new n-ary datatypes support, I'd advise against trying to work with it. It is an area of the spec that, as I understand it, may undergo a fair bit of change, yet, it is not well supported by current tools and I don't believe it would be well suited (if suited at all) as a solution for your case. Of course, more detail about your example and what you're trying to do would help in providing a more informed suggestion. :) Since you mentioned the N-ary relations Note, I'd like to pose a question to the list in general. In http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/#choosingPattern1or2, the second bullet describes a "maintenance problem" created by the "class as relation" approach and provides a specific example that would be tedious to model in OWL if this approach were used. Starting with the N3 example provided for use case 3, would adding the following not serve to encode this constraint? :BookSeller a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf :Company . _:x a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty :has_seller ; owl:someValuesFrom :BookSeller ; rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty :has_object ; owl:allValuesFrom :Book ] . I was able to get the expected results with this using Pellet. It seems like a reasonably concise encoding of the constraint and would, I think, avoid the "lattice of classes" mentioned in the Note. -Brandon :) ________________________________ From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gocev, Pavel Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:44 AM To: public-owl-dev@w3.org Subject: Bill-Of-Material in OWL Dear all, I am trying to model a Bill Of Material for Product_A and Product_B due to following structure: Product_A consist of: - Component_C1 - 4 Items - Component_C2 - 2 Items Product_B consist of: - Component_C1 - 3 Items - Component_C2 - 3 Items Should I use the principle of http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ or it is more suitable OWL 1.1. (if yes I would appreciate the example). Thank you in advance and Best Regards, Pavel Gocev
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 21:55:51 UTC