- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:38:45 +0200
- To: Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>>> Note that this use case is *not* subsumed by any other we are
>>> considering. The use of disjunction makes the OWL ontology
>>> incompatible
>>> with the naive "inferred triples" model.
>>
>> I don't believe so. It's straightforward to infer
>> Bob rdf:type ManagementOrSupport
>> from
>> Bob rdf:type Management
>> and
>> ManagementOrSupport owl:unionOf (Management Support).
>>
>> Using hasGroup rather than rdf:type is slightly more tedious,
>> but just as doable.
>
> I'm afraid I don't entirely understand your technique. How can such an
> approach be used to solve the use case?
>
> I was thinking that the user should be able to query for employees in
> the Management or Support groups with a simple query on the RDF.
> Ideally, the OWL ontology shouldn't require them to completely
> reformulate their query. (An approach that uses owl constructs even for
> plain RDF queries is one solution.)
trying to test that, I queried
:Bob a :Management.
with
:Bob a [ owl:unionOf (:Management :Support)].
and got back
_:27_3 owl:unionOf _:28_3.
_:28_3 rdf:first :Management.
_:28_3 rdf:rest _:29_3.
_:29_3 rdf:first :Support.
_:29_3 rdf:rest> rdf:nil.
:Bob a _:27_3.
so that succeeded (*)
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
(*)the latter triple was in detail inferred as
{
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#owl9u1>.
_:27_3 owl:unionOf _:28_3.
{
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#owl42s1>.
_:28_3 rdf:first :Management.
:Bob a :Management} =>
{:Bob ns0:inSomeOf _:28_3}} =>
{:Bob a _:27_3}.
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 12:39:40 UTC