- From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:07:55 +0200
- To: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3c.org>
On 15.10.2005 18:55:44, Hans Teijgeler wrote: > >The question is: how do I represent the information that >FordCompany isManufacturerOf Mustangs >i.e. how do I define that Property? hm, I'm probably stating the obvious, but I think it comes down to the attempt to mix instance data with onto data, which is not so easy with the basic OWL/RDFS axioms (of course, every subject/object in a triple can be considered an instance, but I hope it's clear what I'm trying to say). So, the basic means to specify a property are domain and range which expect ontological constructs such as property or class as subject or object respectively. That's why it's to intuitive to use them to say something about #FordCompany, an individual. One OWL construct I can think of atm which links ontological things to individuals are "hasValue" property restrictions, but they require the class to be the subject (in your example above #Mustangs is the object). What you could perhaps describe is an inverse of isManufacturerOf, which could then be used in such a property restriction (sorry for probaly broken syntax): [[ #hasManufacturer owl:inverseOf #isManufacturerOf . #Mustangs rdfs:subClassOf [ rdf:type owl:Rescriction ; owl:onProperty #hasManufacturer ; owl:hasValue #FordCompany ]. #Mustangs rdfs:subClassOf [ rdf:type owl:Rescriction ; owl:onProperty #hasManufacturer ; owl:cardinality 1 ]. ]] So, whenever a reasoner encounters a #Mustangs individual, shouldn't it be able to deduce the manufacturer to be #FordCompany? Not really thought through, may well be that #hasManufacturer has to be functional or that it doesn't work at all. But "hasValue" restrictions could be a way to get closer to what you are trying to model without the need for custom rules. just an idea, benjamin -- Benjamin Nowack Kruppstr. 100 45145 Essen, Germany http://www.bnode.org/ > >Regards, >Hans > >-----Original Message----- >From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On >Behalf Of jos.deroo@agfa.com >Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 6:41 PM >To: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl >Cc: semantic-web@w3c.org >Subject: RE: Mustangs vs myMustang > > >Hi, Hans > >My take would be: > >:isManufacturerOf rdfs:domain :Manufacturer; rdfs:range :Car. >:Mustangs rdfs:subClassOf :Car. > >:FordCompany :isManufacturerOf :myMustang. >:myMustang rdf:type :Mustangs. > > >-- >Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > > > >"Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> >Sent by: semantic-web-request@w3.org >15/10/2005 18:04 > > > To: <semantic-web@w3c.org> > cc: (bcc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER) > Subject: RE: Mustangs vs myMustang > > >Hi, > >May I ask someone else to come forward with a response? > >To me it seems that: >- both triples can only exist in the RDF world >- Mustangs is the extent (in RDF) of an owl:Class Mustangs >- Mustang is typed with Mustangs > >For the latter I don't know what the object of that rdf:type is, the >owl:Class or the RDF extent of it. > >Please help me. > >Regards, >Hans > > >From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On >Behalf Of Hans Teijgeler >Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 7:11 PM >To: semantic-web@w3c.org >Subject: Mustangs vs myMustang > >Hi, > >I am still not 100% certain how to model the following: > >- Ford Company isManufacturerOf Mustangs >- Ford Company isManufacturerOf myMustang > >It seems that in both cases the same code is used, but I may be totally >wrong. > >I'd appreciate some enlightment. > >Regards, >Hans >_______________________ >Hans Teijgeler >ISO 15926 specialist >www.InfowebML.ws >hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl >phone +31-72-509 2005 > > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2005 18:11:49 UTC