Re: Handling multiple rdfs:ranges

Hi Ross,

While I agree with Antonie that the definition you suggest is
semantically very weak I think a property as you would define range can
have some pragmatic usefulness in some situation.

But rather than redefining rdfs:range I suggest you use
schema:rangeIncludes, which is defined as:

"Relates a property to a class that constitutes (one of) the expected
type(s) for values of the property."

Cheers,
Reto

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016, at 09:37, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Ross,
> 
> 
> The conclusion here is that Bioportal wrongly uses rdfs:domain. The 
> provenance ontology uses it correctly, and if DBpedia does not have 
> multiple domains or ranges, then no problem.
> 
> There are certainly many more mistaken datasets with this respect, as 
> there are many other kinds of errors in datasets. There are also many 
> misinterpretations of HTML markups, mistakes in CSS files, and in fact, 
> all Web standards are misused to some extent. If the wrong use of 
> multiple domains / ranges was largely predominant, it would be a source 
> of concern for the standardisation groups of future versions of RDF. But 
> your observations in your email are not sufficient to indicate that.
> 
> In any case, your suggestion:
> 
>  >    "Where P has more than one rdfs:range property, then the resources
>  > denoted by the objects of triples with predicate P are instances of
>  > *some* class stated by the rdfs:range properties."
> 
> would not work well with the inherent incompleteness of knowledge on the 
> Web and with the distributed nature of Web data. If I see:
> 
> ex:myProperty  rdfs:domain  ex:Person .
> 
> somewhere on the Web, I would like to conclude something about those 
> individuals who have the property ex:myProperty. Then I may find the 
> following:
> 
> ex:myProperty  rdfs:domain  ex:Female .
> 
> Now I know more than before, so I should infer more about those who have 
> the property. With your suggestion, every time I would know more about 
> the domain of a property, I would know less about those who have the 
> property.






> 
> 
> Best,
> AZ
> 
> On 23/02/2016 03:36, Ross Horne wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm wondering if many people here use multiple rdfs:domain/rdfs:range
> > properties in RDF Schema?
> >
> > The RDF Schema spec is clearly worded: "Where P has more than one
> > rdfs:range property, then the resources denoted by the objects of
> > triples with predicate P are instances of *all* the classes stated by
> > the rdfs:range properties." [similarly for rdfs:domain]
> >
> > However, this doesn't quite match the usage of multiple
> > rdfs:domain/rdfs:range properties in several popular datasets.
> >
> > For example, in Bioportal, the property bpo:has_event has three classes
> > indicated as its domain: bpo:person, bpo:event and
> > bpo:disease_or_disorder. Following the wording of the spec, it would
> > appear that any resource that appears in the subject position of a
> > triple with property bpo:has_event is an instance of all three types
> > bpo:person, bpo:event and bpo:disease_or_disorder. However, common sense
> > says that the resource cannot simultaneously be a person, event and disease.
> >
> > Elsewhere, the provenance ontology avoids the problem by explicitly
> > using owl:unionOf. For example, prov:wasInfluencedBy has rdfs:range such
> > that it is the owl:unionOf the classes prov:Activity, prov:Agent and
> > prov:Entity. DBpedia avoids the problem entirely, since I cannot find
> > any multiple rdfs:domain/rdfs:range properties in their ontologies.
> >
> > The interpretation of multiple rdfs:range properties in the above
> > datasets, either implicitly or explicitly imply an alternative spec such as:
> >
> >    "Where P has more than one rdfs:range property, then the resources
> > denoted by the objects of triples with predicate P are instances of
> > *some* class stated by the rdfs:range properties."
> >
> > I'm wondering whether anyone else has observed this mismatch between the
> > spec and real world datasets; and what the official line would be on
> > avoiding this conflict?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ross
> >
> >
> > Note I'm using the following prefixes in examples:
> > bpo: <http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2010/10/BPO.owl#>
> > prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>
> > rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
> 
> 


-- 
  Reto Gmür
  reto.gmuer@zazuko.com

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 09:31:30 UTC