- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:33:54 -0500 (EST)
- To: danny.ayers@gmail.com
- Cc: bdn_01@hotmail.com, semantic-web@w3.org
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com> Subject: Re: OWL Web Ontology Language Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:21:46 +0100 > On 3/16/06, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > > > > How to express that a child has a preference for dogs rather than cats as a > > > pet? > > > - A given child is an individual with property "hasPetPreference". > > > - A dog or a cat is a class (we should allow for identifying an actual beast > > > as an individual having class dog or cat). > > > All that said, there is an effort to extend OWL in a way that gives you a > > light-weight way to at least state a relationship between an individual and a > > class. In this extension, OWL 1.1, class names can be also used as names of > > individuals, > > Correct me if I'm wrong Peter, but isn't that already possible in OWL > Full? Yes, indeed, this is possible in OWL Full, as well. > (Ok, I assume the way it's done in OWL 1.1 is more tractable, > but the question was only how to express the information). > > There are other possibilities for modelling the scenario, a quick crack - > > :Cat a owl:Class . > :Dog a owl:Class . > > :CatPreferrer :prefers :Cat . > :DogPreferrer :prefers :Dog . > > :CatPreferrer a owl:Class . > :DogPreferrer a owl:Class . > > _:susan a :Child . > _:susan a :DogPreferer . > > does that work? Yes, this gets a very similar effect. [...] > Cheers, > Danny. peter
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2006 20:34:51 UTC