- From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:22:33 +0200
- 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:Restriction> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#isManufacturerOf" /> <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Mustang" /> </owl:Restriction> </owl:Class> and then the individual Ford Company that is typed with above anonymous class: <owl:Thing rdf:ID="FordCompany"/> <owl:Thing rdf:about="#FordCompany"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="#MustangManufacturer"/> </owl:Thing> QUESTIONS: 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? Regards, Hans -----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 :ManufacturedGoods. plus :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>, <semantic-web@w3c.org>, <semantic-web-request@w3.org> Subject: RE: Mustangs vs myMustang Hi Jos, Thanks! 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). Regards, Hans -----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'; Paap, 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# then <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xml:base="http://www.example.org/library#"> <owl:Thing rdf:ID="Mustang"/> <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Mustang"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/library#Mustang"/> </owl:Thing> </rdf:RDF> 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