RE: OWL Web Ontology Language

Exactly. But moreover I'd like to extend the owlx schema

<ObjectPropertyValue
  property = xsd:anyURI {required}
>
  Content: ( Individual[axiom]* )
</ObjectPropertyValue>

to be:

<ObjectPropertyValue
  property = xsd:anyURI {required}
>
  Content: ( Individual[axiom]*, Class, description )
</ObjectPropertyValue>

This would then be in line with Owl Full, wouldn't it?

Brendan


>From: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
>To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>,        
><bdn_01@hotmail.com>
>CC: <semantic-web@w3.org>
>Subject: RE: OWL Web Ontology Language
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:29:07 +0100
>
>Or the example I raised in the past:
>How do you represent the fact that the Ford Company (an Individual)
>manufactures Mustangs (a Class)?
>Hans
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
>Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 20:25
>To: bdn_01@hotmail.com
>Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
>Subject: Re: OWL Web Ontology Language
>
>
>public-webont-comments@w3.org is probably not the best email list for this
>sort of question, as the list is designed for comments about the OWL
>documents themselves.  However, let me take a stab at your question anyway.
>I've cc'ed semantic-web@w3.org which is probably a better list for this 
>kind
>of question.
>
>From: "Bdn 01" <bdn_01@hotmail.com>
>Subject: OWL Web Ontology Language
>Date: 4 Mar 2006 14:59:33 -0800
>
> > OWL Web Ontology (XML Presentation Syntax)
> > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:59:28 +0000
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have been following the development of the web ontology work for
> > over a year now and found the work on this topic extremely exciting. I
> > do now however have a concern that it does not cater for the situation
> > where an individual's property value may be neither a datatype, or
> > another Individual, but rather a class.
> >
> > The reason I write is I would prefer to correctly apply the [OWL]
> > standards than extend the standards to cater for what (to me at least)
> > seems to be a standard case. I have posted the example below to help
> > ilustrate this
> > scenario:
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > Rgds
> > Brendan
>
>
>The problem with all such examples is determining just what they are
>supposed to mean.  Do you want to say that the preference is somehow for 
>the
>class "Dog"
>versus the class "Cat", as, perhaps, one might prefer "PrimeNumber" to
>"OddInteger" because the class of prime numbers are somehow more 
>interesting
>than the class of odd integer; do you want to say that the preference is
>somehow for most dogs over most cats; or do you want to say that the
>preference is somehow for all dogs over all cats.  True modelling should
>take the differences into account.
>
>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, so you could state
>
>	Class(Dog)
>	Class(Cat)
>	ObjectProperty(hasPetPreference)
>	Individual(john value(hasPetPreference Dog))
>	Individual(jill value(hasPetPreference Cat))
>
>For more information on OWL 1.1, see
>http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/OWL1_1.html
>
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Bell Labs Research
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.4/282 - Release Date: 15-Mar-06
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.4/282 - Release Date: 15-Mar-06
>
>

Received on Thursday, 16 March 2006 21:17:03 UTC