- From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:57:02 +0100
- To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Manola, Frank" <fmanola@acm.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Paap, Onno" <onno.paap@ezzysurf.com>
- Message-Id: <200510300857.j9U8v6hA006179@vmx80.multikabel.net>
Hi Ivan, Would this be acceptable: <owl:Thing rdf:ID="PHO-387392"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.iso15926.org/part2/2003-12#PhysicalObject"/> </owl:Thing> ? Regards, Hans PS Then it is close to what the military do: name, rank and number. The number of resulting triples seems to be the same as Frank's: <iso:PhysicalObject rdf:ID="PHO-387392"/> The "Thing" solution may have an advantage for me in that for individuals that exist in space-time we have more than one typing to do, e.g.: <owl:Thing rdf:ID="PHO-387392"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.iso15926.org/part2/2003-12#PhysicalObject"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.iso15926.org/part4/2005-10#MalePerson"/> </owl:Thing> (if PHO-387392 had been myCar, then it would read: <owl:Thing rdf:ID="PHO-387392"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.iso15926.org/part2/2003-12#PhysicalObject"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.iso15926.org/part4/2005-10#Car"/> </owl:Thing> ) (where actually the identification of MalePerson and Car would read something like COP-436327 and COIPO-438212, where COP=ClassOfPerson and COIPO-ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject) -----Original Message----- From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:08 PM To: Hans Teijgeler Cc: 'Frank Manola'; semantic-web@w3.org; Paap, Onno Subject: Re: owl:Thing and RDF -------- Original Message -------- From: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> To: "'Frank Manola'" <fmanola@acm.org> CC: "'Herman, Ivan'" <ivan@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, "Paap, Onno" <onno.paap@ezzysurf.com> Subject: Re:owl:Thing and RDF Date: 28/10/2005 08:08 > Thanks, Frank, it is crystal clear to me now. > I hope Ivan agrees. Yep... this is, indeed, a question of taste and readability. For outside user of a large RDF dataset using owl:Thing may make things (sic!) easier to read and comprehend. I tend to avoid to much implicit knowledge in these syntactical choices, but that may be only me. Ivan > Hans > > =========================================== > > -----Original Message----- > From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Frank Manola > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:36 PM > To: Hans Teijgeler > Cc: Herman, Ivan; semantic-web@w3.org > Subject: Re: owl:Thing and RDF > > > Hans-- > > See embedded comments below. > > Hans Teijgeler wrote: > >>Hi Frank and Ivan, >> >>Thank you for your responses! >> >>Two opinions, and this poor newbie must make a choice, where he had >>hoped for a solution: >> >>========================================== >>Ivan Herman wrote: >> >>I think that >> >>- if you use OWL Full, then owl:Thing is equivalent to rdf:Resource, you >>can't be more general than that:-) >> >>- if you use OWL DL or Lite, than you *have* to use owl:Thing, this is >>the way you identify individuals >> >>Ie: the safe bet is to use owl:Thing. You do not loose anything and, if >>at some point you have a smaller ontology that turns out DL or Lite, >>then you are all set. >> >>Just my personal opinion... >> >>Ivan >>========================================= >>Frank Manola wrote: >> >>Hi Hans-- >> >>I'm probably not the most reliable guide on OWL dialects, and I'm not >>sure I fully understand what you're doing. However, I don't see the >>need to use owl:Thing explicitly at all. My understanding is, if you >>create a user-defined OWL class, e.g., >> >><owl:Class rdf:ID="UserDefinedClass"/> >> >>or as a triple >> >>ex:UserDefinedClass rdf:type owl:Class . >> >>then UserDefinedClass is implicitly a subclass of owl:Thing; you need >>not say anything else. Then, if you create an instance myInstance and >>type it as a member of that OWL class, e.g., >> >>ex:myInstance rdf:type ex:UserDefinedClass . >> >>then myInstance is implicitly an instance of owl:Thing. This is true in >>any of the OWL dialects. >> >>--Frank >>============================================= >> >>Since both seem OK to me, the question arises why this is possible at >>all. Why has the SW been made so complex? Time for a clean-up? >> > > > I'm not sure I understand your concern. If the problem is that there > are equivalent ways to say the same thing in the SW, and you expect > there to be only one way, I don't think that's a very realistic > expectation if the SW is to get anywhere expressing reasonably complex > things. After all, there are certainly lots of ways to say the same > thing in English (or Dutch, or C), right? > >>Frank, if I would follow Ivan's advice, and typically use something >>explicit like: >> >> <owl:Thing rdf:ID="PHO-387392"/> >> <owl:Thing rdf:about="#PHO-387392"> >> <rdf:type >>rdf:resource="http://www.iso15926.org/part2/2003-12#PhysicalObject"/> >> <rdfs:label>Joe Blogg</rdfs:label> >> </owl:Thing> >> >>do you see any REAL disadvantage (other than the neglect of RDF)? Given >>the fact that we use OWL very rigorously by superimposing the ISO >>15926-2 data model, clearly and consistently distinguishing individuals >>from classes by using owl:Thing seems to fit in that rigor (or rigour, >>if you want). >> > > > Perhaps I'm missing something (or I didn't explain myself very well), > but I don't really understand the dilemma. Of course you can use the > syntax above (and I don't really think that it "neglects" RDF in any > awful way!). The only possible disadvantage I see is extra syntax. > There is an example in Section 3.1.2 of the OWL Guide > (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/) that seems to exactly parallel your > example. In that example, the Guide notes that, in defining an > instance, the syntax > > <Region rdf:ID="CentralCoastRegion" /> > > is exactly equivalent in meaning to > > <owl:Thing rdf:ID="CentralCoastRegion" /> > > <owl:Thing rdf:about="#CentralCoastRegion"> > <rdf:type rdf:resource="#Region"/> > </owl:Thing> > > Thus it seems to me that instead of writing your example > > <owl:Thing rdf:ID="PHO-387392"/> > > <owl:Thing rdf:about="#PHO-387392"> > <rdf:type > rdf:resource="http://www.iso15926.org/part2/2003-12#PhysicalObject"/> > <rdfs:label>Joe Blogg</rdfs:label> > </owl:Thing> > > you could write it instead as something like: > > <iso:PhysicalObject rdf:ID="PHO-387392"> > <rdfs:label>Joe Blogg</rdfs:label> > </iso:PhysicalObject> > > (where iso: is the namespace prefix that gives you the rest of the full > ISO URI). This is a typical RDF "typed node" abbreviation, and it works > the same way in OWL (as an RDF language). This is what I meant by > saying I didn't see the need to use owl:Thing explicitly. > > I'm assuming that http://www.iso15926.org/part2/2003-12#PhysicalObject > is already defined as an OWL class, since your original message spoke of > rdf:typing the instances with the applicable OWL classes. That being > the case, if you define the instance as an instance of that OWL class, > the OWL semantics specify that it's also an instance of owl:Thing, > without you having to explicitly say so. Thus as I see it the issue > isn't about whether or not you want to be rigorous in distinguishing > instances from classes (doing so is always a good idea), it's about > whether or not you want to take advantage of built-in OWL semantics to > simplify the syntax you write. > > However, as I said above, I may be missing something, and it won't hurt > to write owl:Thing explicitly if you want. > > >>We have to work with IDs like PHO-387392 anyway, since we deal with more >>than 20,000 classes and hundreds of thousands of individuals (all the >>things that make up an entire oil refinery, and the components thereof, >>and the process streams). We had a discussion about naming, and rejected >>human-understandable names. What would be the human-understandable name >>for a Ford Focus with a wide (not yet made) selection of engines, >>colors, accessories, etc? And what if that selection has been made? >> > > No problem. Lots of things are identified (for given applications) by > non-human understandable names (very few people refer to me in > conversation by my drivers license number, although the Registry of > Motor Vehicles insists that I have one anyway). > > Cheers. > --Frank > > >>Regards, >>Hans > > > -- Ivan Herman W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413 1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153; URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2005 08:57:41 UTC