Re: Mustangs vs myMustang

I strongly recommend that you do NOT use "singleton classes".
Your "singleton class" IS AN INDIVIDUAL!!!
Just give it a unique name that everyone can use.

What makes you think that OWL cannot deal with individuals?

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://rhm.cdepot.net/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
To: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "'Paap, Onno'" <onno.paap@ezzysurf.com>; <semantic-web@w3c.org>; "West, 
Matthew" <matthew.west@shell.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:22 AM
Subject: RE: Mustangs vs myMustang


>
> 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 Wednesday, 19 October 2005 23:03:32 UTC