- From: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:34:59 +0200
- To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, "Daniela F. Brauner" <dani@les.inf.puc-rio.br>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
- Cc: seanb@cs.man.ac.uk, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk
Unfortunately, the draft has not been edited yet as a project report. BTW, I have uploaded a preliminary version to the W3C archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/0011.html Ciao Aldo At 13:45 -0700 7-06-2004, Uschold, Michael F wrote: >Aldo, the link to wonderweb is to the home page. Can you say how to get >to the use case? > >Thanks >Mike > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it] >Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:34 AM >To: Daniela F. Brauner; public-swbp-wg@w3.org >Cc: seanb@cs.man.ac.uk; horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk >Subject: Re: Database schema in OWL > > >Thanks for your question, Daniela. In the WonderWeb project >http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org we have built a use case to show >good translation practices from db (conceptual or logical) schemas to >ontologies (also with help of automatic tools). We should put an >online report asap about that. See below for an example. > >At 12:04 -0300 7-06-2004, Daniela F. Brauner wrote: >>Hi all, >> >>Can someone help me with description of a simple database schema to >OWL? >>What is the best way to describe it?? >> >>Imagine that we have these simple database: (P.S.:assume # to represent >PK >>and & to FK) >> >>Students (#id,name,&courseId) >>Course(#id,name,&deptId) >>Department(#id,name,&deptId) > >The problem with these logical schemas is that some elements are not >relevant from an ontological viewpoint, but they concern database >functioning. Identifiers, specially as fk, are typically so. > >A good practice for your schema would be (quickly quickly): > >Class(Students partial > restriction(hasCourse someValuesFrom Course)) >Class(Course partial > restriction(hasDept someValuesFrom Department)) >Class(Department) >ObjectProperty(hasCourse > domain(Students) > range(Course)) >ObjectProperty(hasDept > domain(Course) > range(Department)) > >In other words, identifers that are just there for indexing purpose >are not really "ontological" (although you can obviously represent >them in OWL as restrictions on datatype properties), while names can >be used as class names. Moreover, whenever there is a clear link >between a "name" and a fk, then you can introduce a property that has >appropriate domain and range restrictions, and use it to create one >or more someValuesFrom restriction(s). > >There are other practices concerning the way properties and classes >should introduced as subclasses or subproperties of existing, >reference ontologies, but this goes beyond what you're asking for. > >Good luck >Aldo > >>Thanks a lot! >> >> >>--- >>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004 > > >-- >Aldo Gangemi >Research Scientist >Laboratory for Applied Ontology >Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology >National Research Council (ISTC-CNR) >Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy >Tel: +390644161535 >Fax: +3906824737 >a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it -- Aldo Gangemi Research Scientist Laboratory for Applied Ontology Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology National Research Council (ISTC-CNR) Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy Tel: +390644161535 Fax: +3906824737 a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 16:35:03 UTC