- 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