- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 19:02:16 +0100
- To: Pavel Klinov <pklinov@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <paatje@cam.hi-ho.ne.jp>, "public-owl-dev@w3.org" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Alternatively, one could also think "why do I bother about "can" if all i need to ensure that, if (sorry for simplifying the example) somebody has a driving licence for vehicle types X and Y, and then, whatever they drive is of kind X or Y... Also, Pavel's suggestion is, I think, from a paper by Rudolph, Kroetzsch and Hitzler "all ephants are bigger than all mice" On 2 Sep 2010, at 10:28, Pavel Klinov <pklinov@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Yoshio, > > Yes, looking from that perspective these properties/instance seem to > serve a similar role to those old familiar auxiliary tables in > relational databases used to implement "many-to-many" relationships. > If you had BD-Recorder and BD-R tables, and you wanted to say that a > single recorder can record to multiple disks and vice versa, you would > also have some third table to specify the relationship. > > I've tried to look for the previous discussions but couldn't find the > one which gives 100% the same trick (I'm sure Uli Sattler suggested it > in some thread but not sure if it was on public-owl-dev or elsewhere). > I kind of implied it here [1] but the discussion was a bit different. > > Cheers, > Pavel > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009AprJun/0067.html > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <paatje@cam.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote: >> >> I think the following interpretations/namings might be interesting: >> >> x as my:RecordingToBD-R >> R as my:isRecordingInstrumentOf >> S as my:isRecordingDestinationOf >> >> the statements being now >> -------------- >> my:BDRecorder rdfs:subClassOf >> [a owl:Restriction; >> owl:onProperty my:isRecordingInstrumentOf; >> owl:hasValue my:RecordingToBD-R] >> . >> >> my:BD-R rdfs:subClassOf >> [a owl:Restriction; >> owl:onProperty my:isRecordingDestinationOf; >> owl:hasValue my:RecordingToBD-R] >> . >> >> my:recodingDestination owl:inverseOf my:isRecordingDestinationOf. >> >> my:recordableTo owl:propertyChainAxiom >> ( my:isRecordingInstrumentOf my:rcordingDestination ) >> . >> -------------- >> >> Now user can reuse the properties above to state >> my:BDRecorder can record to my:BD-RE, >> by replacing my:BD-R with my:BD-RE and my:RecordingToBD-R with >> my:RecordingToBD-RE. >> >> Further, by introducing a reflexive property my:detailedTaskOf and changing >> >> my:recordableTo owl:propertyChainAxiom >> ( my:isRecordingInstrumentOf my:rcordingDestination ) >> . >> >> to >> >> my:recordableTo owl:propertyChainAxiom >> ( my:isRecordingInstrumentOf my:detailedTaskOf my:rcordingDestination ) >> . >> >> and if the following rough statement holds, >> >> my:RecordingToBD-R my:detailedTaskOf my:RecordingToDVD-R. >> >> then with >> >> my:DVD-R rdfs:subClassOf >> [a owl:Restriction; >> owl:onProperty my:isRecordingDestinationOf; >> owl:hasValue my:RecordingToDVD-R] >> . >> >> one can get any instance of my:BDRecorder is my:recordableTo any instance of >> my:DVD-R. >> >> So, the "x", "R". "S" don't seem to me to be just nonce bridges, but could >> carry meanings >> and be reusable in the ontology. >>> >>> 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. >> >> Could you show any pointers to such discussions? >> That should help me a lot. >> >> Best, >> Yoshio >> > > > > -- > cheers, > --pavel > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~klinovp >
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 18:03:11 UTC