- From: Koen Aerts <koen.aerts@sadl.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:20:04 +0200
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Dear all, In our project we are developing a system to gain semantic interoperability between different topographic databases using OWL-DL. Such databases contain topographic features with their attributes. For example roads with attributes road width, road surface, etc. At this moment we have reached semantic interoperability of topographic feature classes. We can infer equivalences and sub/super class relationships between topographic feature classes of different databases. For example we can inter the equivalency between a 'road' in an english topographic database and a 'route' in the french counterpart. In the next step we are trying to match the equivalent attributes. We want to derive that attribute 'a' of topographic feature class 'A' is equivalent to attribute 'b' of topographic feature class 'B', given their is a equivalency or a sub/superclass relationship between 'A' and 'B'. We want to use attributes 2 ways: 1) to derive to which topographic feature class a topographic feature belongs according to it's attribute values 2) once we know the topographic feature class of a topographic feature, to fill in the attribute values for a specific attribute from an equivalent attribute from a different database. Here is my question then: how would you model this in OWL? When we look at other projects, attributes are modelled as properties in OWL. The disadvantage of this approach is that you can not reason about properties. It is possible to define equivalent properties, but then you are doing the reasoning yourself. We want a reasoner to do this for us. So we made a topographic upper ontology which can be used to define topographic features and their attributes. Both are modelled as classes. We make seperate ontologies for each topographic database where the topographic features and attributes of that database are defined in terms of our topographic upper ontology. The genereal object property "hasAttribute" relates a topographic feature with it's attributes. The main advantage of this approach is the ability to reason about the attributes. Two topographic databases can be described independent from each other, the reasoner will infer the relations between the two. We would like to invoke a discussion on how to deal with attributes and the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches. Kind regards, Koen -- Koen Aerts K.U.Leuven R&D Division SADL (Spatial Applications Division Leuven) Geo-Institute, Celestijnenlaan 200 E, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium TEL: +32-16-32.97.27 FAX: +32-16-32.97.24 http://www.sadl.kuleuven.be Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 12:39:55 UTC