W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2005

RE: Mustangs vs myMustang

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:22:33 +0200
Message-Id: <200510180922.j9I9McYd009387@vmx20.multikabel.net>
To: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "'Paap, Onno'" <onno.paap@ezzysurf.com>, <semantic-web@w3c.org>, "West, Matthew" <matthew.west@shell.com>

Hi Jos and Geoff,

Forgive me my ignorance, but could you please translate:

:FordCompany rdf:type [a owl:Restriction;
                 owl:onProperty :isManufacturerOf;
                 owl:someValuesFrom :Mustangs].

into RDF/XML? As a newcomer RDF/XML is clearer to me than the above code (I
am not one of the seemingly many RDF/XML bashers, probably because it was
the first I learned to use).

Not to seem lazy, I'll give it a try myself:
I first define the class:

    <owl:Class rdf:ID="MustangManufacturer">
        <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#CarManufacturer"/>
            <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#isManufacturerOf" /> 
            <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Mustang" /> 

and then the individual Ford Company that is typed with above anonymous

   <owl:Thing rdf:ID="FordCompany"/> 
    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#FordCompany">
        <rdf:type rdf:resource="#MustangManufacturer"/> 

1. is this code correct?
2. Could I, instead of the class MustangManufacturer also define a singleton
class FordCompany? (that wouldn't help in this case, because it is possible
that other companies manufacture Mustangs in licence). The advantage,
however, of defining that singleton would be that I can define everything
about FordCompany at OWL-level, and where necessary cross over to RDF later.
That singleton, if defined at some central server, could avoid using
hundreds of URIs for the same company (we call that a "reference
individual", also defined for geographical objects (e.g. London,UK) )
3. How do you define that a class is a singleton? 


-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of jos.deroo@agfa.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:36 AM
To: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
Cc: 'Paap, Onno'; semantic-web@w3c.org
Subject: RE: Mustangs vs myMustang

There is nothing alarming about making a distinction between the thing and
its extension and allowing things to belong to (even their own) extension.
I really like that very much; still for your case my take would be

:isManufacturerOf rdfs:domain :Manufacturer; rdfs:range 


:Mustangs rdfs:subClassOf :ManufacturedGoods.
:myMustang rdf:type :Mustangs.
:FordCompany :isManufacturerOf :myMustang.

and have Geoff's

:FordCompany rdf:type [a owl:Restriction;
                 owl:onProperty :isManufacturerOf;
                 owl:someValuesFrom :Mustangs].

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

"Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
17/10/2005 07:59

        To:     Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
        cc:     "'Paap, Onno'" <onno.paap@ezzysurf.com>,
        Subject:        RE: Mustangs vs myMustang

Hi Jos,


Your last sentence: " That is indeed *possible* in RDF and OWL Full"  is
rather alarming to me as being seen by you as substandard. 

If this were to comply with the constraints of OWL DL, how should I model
it? (your assumption about the base URI was correct).


-----Original Message-----
From: jos.deroo@agfa.com [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:32 PM
To: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
Cc: 'Hans Teijgeler'; 'Sullivan, Jan'; 'West, Matthew R SIPC-OFD/321'; 
Onno; semantic-web@w3c.org; semantic-web-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mustangs vs myMustang

> From the beginning I have struggled with chapter 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide. 

So let me ask this question: If I have:
>    <owl:Thing rdf:ID="Mustang"/> 
>    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Mustang">
>        <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/library#Mustang"/> 
>    </owl:Thing>
> then does this mean that I have here the class extension?

What is the base URI for that rdf:ID="Mustang"?
If it is http://www.example.org/library#

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"

    <owl:Thing rdf:ID="Mustang"/> 
    <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Mustang">
        <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/library#Mustang"/> 


is saying that

:Mustang rdf:type :Mustang.

or saying that :Mustang is in it's own extension
(and :myMustang is also in that extension)
That is indeed *possible* in RDF and OWL Full

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2005 09:26:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:54 UTC