- From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea@pasteur.fr>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:18:34 +0200
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Properties on classes are always allowed, but their semantics is not the same as in OO. This applies to RDFS/OWL(any). As far as i can see you can export the content in such an example in RDF, where the RDF dictionary comply to an OWL ontology. And you don't need OWL-Full, in fact I don't see how much you can gain from OWL in an ontology that reflects an OO model, that inform a distinction between classes and individuals quite naturally. The are no problems in DL. Just one has to be careful not to assume a different semantics, or most likely, he will end up with a far less characterized ontology then expected (and maybe some unexpected inference due to Open World). best, Andrea Il giorno 20/set/06, alle ore 10:41, Steve Harris ha scritto: > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 08:51:31 -0500, ben syverson wrote: >> >> >> On Sep 19, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Richard Newman wrote: >> >>> RDF types are not object oriented classes. RDF instances are not >>> objects. They do not inherit anything in the OO sense. >> >> Got it -- "inherit" is a dirty word. The issue I'm dealing with is >> that the internal model of my application is indeed more closely >> related to the OO class/object model, so I'm trying to figure out the >> most useful way to publish that information as RDF documents and OWL >> ontologies. >> >> For example, classes can have properties in likn, and I'm trying to >> determine a good way to represent that in RDF/OWL. My current plan is >> to simply copy out the properties of a class to its individuals when >> serializing to RDF/XML. I don't know of a better way to represent, >> for example, the concept "all individuals of the class CocaColaCans >> have the property 'color' with the value Red." >> >> Any suggestions? > > Use RDFS or OWL Full instead? RDFS certainly allows properties on > classes, > and I'm pretty sure OWL Full does too. It doesn't sound like youre > doing > any complex reasoning, so the abilities offered by sticking to the > OWL DL > subset is probably not relevent. > > - Steve >
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:18:43 UTC