- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:53:10 -0700
- To: Eric Jain <ejain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>>>>> :AfricanLion >>>>> a :Animal; >>>>> rdfs:subClassOf :Lion . >>>>> >>>>> :Animal >>>>> a owl:Class; >>>>> rdfs:subClassOf owl:Class . > >> AfricanLion will also be a subclass of owl:Class, which will mean that >> all its instances are classes. In most applications, this is probably >> not what you want. > > I realize that this approach can be misleading. Let's say we have > > :hasAnimal > a :ObjectProperty > rdfs:range :Animal > > and > > :Simba > rdfs:subClassOf :AfricanLion; > > then we can't say > > :SanDiegoZoo > :hasAnimal :Simba > > until we also assert that > > :Simba > a :Animal; > > Also, this will only work with OWL Full. Neverthless I think this is a > valid approach (let me know if it isn't), and no more awkward than > some of > the other solutions you propose :-) > Actually, I think it is more awkward. Having Simba both as an instance and a subclass of Animal is awkward at best. In some, very rare, circumstances, you could argue that that's what you want (in fact, I've done that myself [1]), but it complicates things significantly, and probably shouldn't be done unless you absolutely have to. Natasha [1] N. Noy, M. Musen, J. L.V. Mejino, Jr., and C. Rosse "Pushing the Envelope: Challenges in a Frame-Based Representation of Human Anatomy." Data and Knowledge Engineering Journal, 48/3 pp. 335-359. Available as SMI technical report SMI-2002-0925 at http://smi-web.stanford.edu/pubs/SMI_Abstracts/SMI-2002-0925.html
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 19:53:15 UTC