- From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:33:31 +0100
- To: "'Leo Sauermann'" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
- Cc: "'Paul Gearon'" <gearon@ieee.org>, "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "'Chris Wilper'" <cwilper@cs.cornell.edu>, "'Manola, Frank'" <fmanola@acm.org>
- Message-ID: <000301c700f8$268ad2b0$6c7ba8c0@hans>
Hi Leo, In your 1st link I read: It may be natural to think of HYPERLINK "http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#reification"RDF reification when representing n-ary relations. We do not want to use the RDF reification vocabulary to represent n-ary relations in general for the following reasons. The RDF reification vocabulary is designed to talk about statements—individuals that are instances of rdf:Statement. A statement is a object, predicate, subject triple and reification in RDF is used to put additional information about this triple. This information may include the source of the information in the triple, for example. In n-ary relations, however, additional arguments in the relation do not usually characterize the statement but rather provide additional information about the relation instance itself. Thus, it is more natural to talk about instances of a diagnosis relation or a purchase rather than about a statement. In the use cases that we discussed in the note, the intent is to talk about instances of a relation, not about statements about such instances. In your 2nd link I read in chapter 4.3: For one thing, it is important to note that in the conventional use of reification, the subject of the reification triples is assumed to identify a particular instance of a triple in a particular RDF document, rather than some arbitrary triple having the same subject, predicate, and object. . . . . . Thus, to fully support this convention, there needs to be some means of associating the subject of the reification triples with an individual triple in some document. However, RDF provides no way to do this. This does not increase my enthousiasm for reification. Besides that I still see no sign that one can generalize this in an OWL schema for validation purposes. Regards, Hans _____ From: Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 15:55 To: Hans Teijgeler Cc: 'Paul Gearon'; 'SW-forum'; 'Chris Wilper'; Manola, Frank Subject: Re: rdf:Property used as rdf:object in a triple Hi Hans, have you looked into Reification and did you try it out for your problem? checkout reification, it will do what you need. HYPERLINK "http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/#RDFReification"http://www.w3.org/ TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/#RDFReification HYPERLINK "http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#reification"http://www.w 3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#reification Or read this article, which explains why Reification may be what you may need: or if you should go for indivivduals HYPERLINK "http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/"http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRe lations/ greetings Leo Es begab sich aber da Hans Teijgeler zur rechten Zeit 05.11.2006 10:47 folgendes schrieb: Hi Paul, Thanks for your response! (and thanks as well to Chris and Frank). Let me explain this with a simple example: * John isInvolvedWith Jane * Jane's father Pete givesApprovalTo that relationship This means that the isInvolvedWith relationship is the rdf:object of the predicate 'givesApprovalTo'. We then also want to represent the owl:Restriction that Fathers approve such relationships of their daughters (granted, it's a bit old-fashioned, but it's just an example). This example is not rare. Another one is: * Nozzle N1 isWeldedTo Vessel V1 * that welded connection isInspectedBy John I guess that I should start using reification, but quite honestly I am too dumb to understand the text in [1] [1] HYPERLINK "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Reif"http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Reif Is reification at all possible in an OWL environment? It seems not to be the case. Mind you, we define "templates" with Restrictions in OWL that will be used to validate the zillions of instances of those templates in RDF. So for example we define, using 15926 model lingo, a template for DirectConnection of two PossibleIndividuals, and make sure, using owl:Restrictions, that any instance of that template has an instance of PossibleIndividual at both sides. These templates can be specialized by onProperty restrictions to, for example, a template for welded connections that can only be between instances of PossibleIndividual that can be welded at all. I hope I haven't made this too complex :-) Regards, Hans ____________________ OntoConsult Hans Teijgeler ISO 15926 specialist Netherlands +31-72-509 2005 HYPERLINK "http://www.infowebml.ws/"www.InfowebML.ws HYPERLINK "mailto:hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl"hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl _____ From: Paul Gearon [HYPERLINK "mailto:gearon@ieee.org"mailto:gearon@ieee.org] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 23:56 To: Hans Teijgeler Cc: SW-forum Subject: Re: rdf:Property used as rdf:object in a triple On Nov 4, 2006, at 6:25 AM, Hans Teijgeler wrote: Folks, rdf:Property is a subClassOf rdfs:Resource, so syntactically a property could be the rdf:object of a triple. My question is, whether or not there is something against doing that from a semantics/reasoning point of view. Can anybody shed some light on this? There's certainly no rule against it. Reification requires it. So does rdfs:subPropertyOf. As for semantics... you can get away with a lot in RDF. But if you want to keep things as valid OWL-Lite or OWL-DL then you have to be more careful, as properties are treated a little differently to other resources. Properties only start getting back the "privileges" of other types of resources (like classes) when you get up to OWL-Full. Paul -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 04-Nov-06 17:30 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 04-Nov-06 17:30 -- ____________________________________________________ DI Leo Sauermann HYPERLINK "http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann"http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann DFKI GmbH P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +49 631 205-3503 67608 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 205-3472 Germany Mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:leo.sauermann@dfki.de"leo.sauermann@dfki.de ____________________________________________________ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 04-Nov-06 17:30 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 04-Nov-06 17:30
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 16:34:18 UTC