- From: Pavel Klinov <pklinov@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:22:05 +0100
- To: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <paatje@cam.hi-ho.ne.jp>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hi Yoshio,
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Yoshio FUKUSHIGE
<paatje@cam.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> (2010/08/31 18:05), Pavel Klinov wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yoshio,
>>
>> How about this:
>>
>> - Add a named individual :x
>> - State that each recorder is related to :x by some property R
>> (Recorder subclassOf R some {x})
>> - State that each disk is related to :x by some property S (Disk
>> subclassOf S some {x})
>> - State that R o S- (inverse of S) -> recordableTo (property chain)
>>
>> The ontology should entail recordableTo(a,b) for all Recorder(a), Disk(b).
>>
>> Or did I misunderstand you?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pavel
>>
>
> Thank you for your advice.
> I tried it on my SPARQL test application using Joseki + Pellet, and it
> worked!
Great!
>
> I'm wondering now if I can give some interpretation (or name) to the "x",
> "R", "S (or its inverse)"
> introduced above...
Hmm, I'd rather consider such a solution as an implementation detail
which should be hidden from the model users (applications). "x"
basically serves as a bridge between Recorder and Disk.
>
> By the way, your response was directly sent to me, I think.
> Why don't you send it to the mailing list, too, if you don't mind?
> Please don't mistake me, I'm not saying you should have done so,
> I appreciate your quick and kind response, but I think others might benefit
> from you response to me, too.
> (Or do I mistake the purpose of the mailing list?)
No-no, I simply hit the wrong button :)
And it's not my solution, btw, I've seen it suggested/discussed in
some forms a number of times.
Cheers,
Pavel
>
> Best,
> Yoshio
>
--
cheers,
--pavel
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~klinovp
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 10:22:38 UTC