- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:19:06 +0100
- To: Andrew Gibson <a.p.gibson@uva.nl>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 11 Aug 2008, at 14:35, Andrew Gibson wrote: [snip] > In this case, the Property hierarchy looks like: > > hasChild (range Person) > hasDaughter (subPropertyOf hasChild, range FemalePerson) > hasSon (subPropertyOf hasChild, range Maleperson) [snip] > In this case I was investigating how Theoretical Datasource 1, that > states for each individual: My first, reflexive response is "DL Safe Rules", since you are aligning data. > Gender (as MalePerson or FemalePerson) > Children (as hasChild) > > could be integrated with another Theoretical Datasource 2, that uses: > > Gender (not asserted, only Person) > Children (as hasSon and hasDaughter – Genders inferred) > > Simply put, the problem with directly integrating these is that in > the Datasource 1, given the Class assertions: > > Vera instanceOf FemalePerson > Jane instanceOf FemalePerson > Vera hasChild Jane > > It does not seem possible to infer the more specific relationship: > > Vera hasDaughter Jane > > that would make the data directly comparable to the representation > of Datasource 2. [snip] You might be able to use the following trick: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/22 Which would give you a stronger result (i.e., class subsumptions) than the corresponding DL Safe rule. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 14:16:43 UTC