- From: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:43:20 -0300
- To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au
- Cc: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOLUXBsvHrA431t1Nz7fLdL21KPD=2rYG3MQV6_LuYKca7X33Q@mail.gmail.com>
I've just uploaded PDF versions of the files so you can preview them in browser instead of downloading them. Thanks! On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 9:32 PM <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > Hey Sebastian – > > > > If you are using GitHub for blogging, then I suggest you write in > Markdown, rather than attaching .docx. > > That way we can read your musings directly instead of having to download. > > > > *From:* Sebastian Samaruga [mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, 12 June, 2018 10:22 > *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > *Cc:* Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>; Dan Brickley < > danbri@google.com>; Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>; > Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>; public-schemaorg@w3.org; > W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>; public-rww <public-rww@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Schema.org and OWL > > > > I don't know if this really deserves attention in this context. I can't > stop trying to figure out how to solve issues as such in this thread but > also a more general way of using RDF (Quads) to solve other kind of > mediation / alignment issues in a distributed manner. > > > > As I go along I'm dumping my thoughts in an ideas scrapbook manner. As > long as I'll be able to put them into readable documents format I'll be > publishing them in raw form, just for the case I'm missing something. > > > > https://github.com/ssamarug/ssamarug > > > > http://exampledotorg.blogspot.com > > > > (warning: these are just raw statements of concepts or ideas. I don't > currently have time to put them in an orderly fashion, the purpose is > solely to have them somewhere in the hope of having a chance to collaborate > into developing them further). > > > > Best, > > Sebastian. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 1:30 PM Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> > wrote: > > In the realm of upper ontologies I think ISO-15926 [1] handles this sort > of issues nicely (that's why I'm copying this thread to semantic-web) but > it is a whole of an upper ontology and didn't have the time to understand > it completely. > > > > For what is whorth for me, I'm trying to adapt an object-oriented design > pattern (DCI: Data, Context and Interactions [2]) to the realm of RDF Quads > metamodels. There I regard of dimensionally aggregated data (D) for which > schema occurrences (C) play roles in behaviors instances / flows (I). > > > > I'm working in a formal description of the later, and I've also posted > previously some blurry early drafts. I also have a strong focus in ontology > alignments / translations so the use case could fit for generating other > schema documents. Regards, > > Sebastián. > > > > [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15926 > > > > [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data,_context_and_interaction > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:23 AM <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > > My read of all this is that > > > > schema.org:Event subClassOf natural-language:Event . > > > > You need to recognize that the name of the concept in schema.org is more > specialized that the use of the word 'Event' in all English-language > usages. > > > > The upper-ontologies resolve this by using a more technical word - like > occurrent or perdurant - which includes all time-bounded things including > both planned events, unplanned incidents, things that move around, as well > as other kinds of interactions. But even these attempts to define > universals must be taken with a pinch of salt. Classification is contextual > - the 'same thing' may be classified differently in different applications. > The main application of schema.org is SEO, so the classification system > is tuned to that. > > > > > > *Simon J D Cox* > Research Scientist > Land and Water > <http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Land-and-Water> > CSIRO > > E simon.cox@csiro.au *T* +61 3 9545 2365 *M* +61 403 302 672 > * Physical: *Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168 > * Deliveries: *Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168 > *Postal:* Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169 > people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox > orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420 > researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3 > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3> > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, 11 June 2018 8:26 AM > *To:* Dan Brickley > *Cc:* Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Richard Wallis; public-schemaorg@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Schema.org and OWL > > > > Yep I definitely understand it doesn't imply disjointedness. But > subclassing is answered by the "some or all" test, and I'd argue that all > instances of these types are events. For example, is there an example of a > trip that is not an event? > > > > And yep I completely agree, some not all books have current offers for > sale/trade, so books are not a subtype of product. And I completely agree > with the second example too, some not all things being offered are creative > works. For example, an orange being offered for sale is a product but not a > creative work, thus not all products are creative works. So I don't think > those are examples of tradeoffs by schema.org, they're completely correct > modeling by schema.org. > > > > If things like trips aren't considered events then strange behavior or > additional work for people will result. For example a reasoner might look > for all events to display on a calendar, but with the current structure all > trips will have to be additionally typed as events, when in my view it > should be implicit from already being classified as a trip. > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:38 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > > The lack of a "subclassof" relationship doesn't mean we consider the types > disjoint. You might similarly argue that all books are products, or that > all products are creative works. While we respect the efforts of the > ontologies community, Schema org is a bit different in the tradeoffs we > have chosen to make. The looseness may be frustrating but it has also > helped us grow this thing incrementally. > > > > Dan > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 14:28 Anthony Moretti, <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> > wrote: > > If we believe schema.org will be used long into the future then even if > changes are hard we should try to make them right? > > > > Arguing by word origins, even the word "action" comes from "event". Using > the dictionary on Google: > > > > "action" > > "act" > > "actus" (Latin) - event, thing done > > > > Arguing by structure, Actions on schema.org duplicate the startDate and > endDate properties (startTime and endTime). Additionally, Actions have a > state property on schema.org but Events do not, yet all action states can > all be derived from more general event states. So putting Action, or any > type with a startDate or endDate, as a subtype of Event actually removes > redundancy. > > > > A simple test to determine whether something is an event or not is can it > be put on a calendar and look normal? I think instances of all the types I > mentioned can: > > > > Event > > Action > > Course > > Offer > > ParcelDelivery > > Relationship > > Trip > > > > Anthony > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:38 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > > Yeah, we decided against cramming Actions under Event a long time ago, > even if it has a certain appeal; I' d say same goes for the other event-ish > types. > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 11:24 Peter F. Patel-Schneider, < > pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's very difficult to determine what things are instance of schema.org > Event > because the guidance is so slim, particularly as we are not supposed to > take > into account most of the information on http://schema.org/Event. My > view is > that even if we are supposed to ignore everything after "certain time and > location", then schema.org Event should be read narrowly, excluding things > that don't have a certain time or don't have a certain location. This > would > rule out Action, ParcelDelivery (as the entire delivery process), and > Trip, as > these generally take place over several locations. Offer is ruled out > because it often doesn't have a location at all and its temporal > information > doesn't have to do with its "happening". Course is also ruled out because > it > is more than a sequence of lectures. > > > One could take an expansive view of schema.org Event, perhaps saying that > its > instances are anything that has a temporal component and a spatial > component. So Bill Murray is an instance of schema.org Event via his > birth > date and his location on Earth, as is his membership in the cast of > Ghostbusters. But then what things aren't instances of Event (besides > platonic entities like 3, if you assume that there are any truly platonic > entities)? > > > Is there a middle ground? Formal ontologists have attempted to create > one---dividing the universe into endurants and perdurants. But I don't see > that schema.org Event is getting at the meaning of perdurant. > > > peter > > > > > On 06/10/2018 12:32 AM, Anthony Moretti wrote: > > Let's get the easy ones out of the way before looking at Roles. The > > following are obviously subtypes of event, I might create an issue on > GitHub > > to get more feedback: > > > > Event > > > > Action > > > > Course > > > > Offer > > > > ParcelDelivery > > > > Trip > > > > > > I'll argue for Role now. In my view, it would be easier to understand if > the > > terminology was Relation, or Relationship, rather than Role. > > > > An event is either: > > > > * A period of time (e.g. Jun 9, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM) > > * The period of time that a statement, explicit or implicit, is true > (e.g. > > My run this morning = Anthony isRunning True) > > > > To be clear, having the same statement exist with different periods of > > validity can still be consistent: > > > > * Anthony isRunning True (Jun 9, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM) > > * Anthony isRunning True (Jun 8, 2018, 12 PM - 1 PM) > > > > If you look at temporal databases > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_database> every fact has a valid > > time <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_time> - the time period during > > which the fact is true. Therefore if you reify any fact or relationship > you > > produce something with start or end times, therefore producing an event.. > > > > In schema.org <http://schema.org>: > > > > 1. All Roles are reified relationships. > > 2. Therefore all Roles have "valid times". > > 3. Therefore all Roles have start or end times. > > 4. Therefore all Roles are events. > > > > If the terminology was updated it would look like: > > > > Event > > > > Relationship, or Relation (currently Role) > > > > > > Regarding Bill Murray, what is being modeled if not the fact that Bill > > Murray was involved as an actor during its filming, and so for a period > of time? > > > > And yep, I agree that you can define an entity and separately define an > > event that represents its period of existence. But you can't do that for > an > > event, and in like fashion you can't do that for a statement either, it > just > > wouldn't make sense for either right? > > > > Anthony > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:52 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Yes, many Roles in schema.org <http://schema.org> are events, and > could > > be so modelled. But not > > all, in my opinion, or at least not usefully. > > > > > > For example the relationship between Bill Murray and Ghostbusters is > not an > > event. It was, perhaps, initiated by a bunch of events, namely a > > sequence of > > acting performances that were captured and edited together to form > the > > movie. > > However, that bunch of events is not the relationship being > modelled. > > > > > > It's just like one might model people as their lives, i.e., an event > that > > plays out (roughly) from conception to death. But I find it useful > to > > distinguish between a person and their life event. > > > > > > peter > > > > > > > > On 06/06/2018 09:01 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote: > > > I agree that the first problem to do with strings can be solved by > boxing > > > them into anonymous individuals. On the second problem to do with > Roles I > > > agree that you can't do a simple "subjectOf" transform because > Role is not > > > in the domain of "about", but maybe defining a new property such as > > > "participantIn" (domain Thing, range Role) and using it wherever a > Role is > > > the object of a statement might keep about the same level of > meaning (not > > > very good) but at least make it consistent OWL? So your example > would be > > > transformed to: > > > > > > DJT : Person > > > > > > participantIn ? : Role > > > > > > spouse MM : Person > > > > > > startDate : 1993 > > > > > > endDate : 1999 > > > > > > participantIn ? : Role > > > > > > spouse IT : Person > > > > > > startDate : 1977 > > > > > > endDate : 1992 > > > > > > > > > A more general solution using guidance > > > from https://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ and with better > meaning > > > might be: > > > > > > DJT : Person > > > > > > isSpouseFor ? : MarriageRelation > > > > > > spouse DJT : Person > > > > > > spouse MM : Person > > > > > > startDate : 1993 > > > > > > endDate : 1999 > > > > > > isSpouseFor ? : MarriageRelation > > > > > > spouse DJT : Person > > > > > > spouse IT : Person > > > > > > startDate : 1977 > > > > > > endDate : 1992 > > > > > > > > > Your question about movie roles is also solved by this, for > example: > > > > > > Bill Murray : Person > > > > > > isActorFor ? : PerformanceRelation > > > > > > actor Bill Murray : Person > > > > > > movie Ghostbusters : Movie > > > > > > characterName : Dr. Peter Venkman > > > > > > startDate : 1983 > > > > > > endDate : 1984 > > > > > > > > > Class hierarchy: > > > > > > Event > > > > > > Relation > > > > > > MarriageRelation > > > > > > PerformanceRelation > > > > > > > > > I think confusion might come from the many English meanings of > "role": > > > > > > Type of role, e.g. Quarterback - no start or end dates. > > > Instance of a role, e.g. 49ers quarterback 1979-1992 - > potential start > > > and end dates. > > > Character, e.g. Hamlet - no start or end dates. > > > > > > > > > So I'm still lead to believe that Role/Relation and several other > types in > > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> are subtypes of > > Event because their instances > > > always have potential start and end dates: > > > > > > Event > > > > > > Action > > > > > > Course > > > > > > Role/Relation > > > > > > Offer > > > > > > ParcelDelivery > > > > > > Trip > > > > > > > > > Anybody else think this too? I'm a bit new to this so hope I'm not > putting > > > something too strange out there! > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:20 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > > > > The short-circuiting of Role in schema.org <http://schema.org> > > <http://schema.org> is > > > certainly outside of > > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>. OWL has > > nothing that can do the right > > > thing with the following > > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> data > > > > > > DJT : Person > > > spouse ? : Role > > > spouse MM : Person > > > startDate : 1991 > > > endDate : 1999 > > > spouse ? : Role > > > spouse IT : Person > > > startDate : 1977 > > > endDate: 1992 > > > spouse MT : Person > > > particularly in conjunction with > > > spouse > > > domain Person > > > range Person > > > > > > Except that you could turn *all* property values (except maybe > for > > those > > > properties that are guaranteed never to have a Role > intermediary) into > > > events > > > *before* they got to OWL. This would look something like: > > > > > > DJT : Person > > > spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent > > > spouse MM : Person > > > startDate : 1991 > > > endDate : 1999 > > > spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent > > > spouse IT : Person > > > startDate : 1997 > > > endDate : 1992 > > > spouseEvent ? : SpouseEvent > > > spouse MT : Person > > > spouse range Person > > > domain SpouseEvent > > > spouseEvent range SpouseEvent > > > domain Person > > > SpouseEvent sub Event > > > startDate range Date > > > endDate range Date > > > > > > Hah! That turned out better than I thought it would, but I > view the > > > need for > > > the transform as showing that schema.org <http://schema.org> > > <http://schema.org> Role is > > > outside the purview of OWL > > > because it requires major surgery to the underlying ontology > (as > > opposed > > > to a > > > transform to handle "strings as things" that just replaces such > > strings > > > with a > > > blank node connected to the string by some sort of description > > property > > > which > > > doesn't require such surgery). > > > > > > And then what do you do about movie roles? They shouldn't > have start > > > and end > > > dates, or even have the possibility of start and end dates. > > > > > > peter > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/06/2018 02:50 PM, Anthony Moretti wrote: > > > > Peter, when you say "roles fall outside the purview of OWL" > is > > it possible > > > > that Role should be a subtype of Event, thus requiring no > special > > > treatment? > > > > I say that because individual roles have potential start and > end > > dates. > > > > > > > > If you continue that thinking you end up with several types > that > > might be > > > > considered subtypes of Event: > > > > > > > > Event > > > > > > > > Action > > > > Course > > > > Role > > > > Offer > > > > Parcel delivery > > > > Trip > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:42 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > > > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> > > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > OK, it appears that you are trying to produce an OWL > > ontology that > > > would > > > > accept schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org > > > > <http://schema.org> > > > documents that would accept > > > > unexceptional schema.org <http://schema.org> > > <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> > > > > documents (under some loose definition of what makes an > > unexceptional > > > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> > > <http://schema.org> document). > > > > > > > > > > > > But you are running up against problems with "strings as > > things" and > > > > Roles. > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at about and subjectOf. Any use of a string as a > > value for > > > about is > > > > going to make that string an instance of two OWL Classes > > (the range of > > > > about, > > > > which includes Text, and the domain of subjectOf, which > > doesn't). > > > This > > > > is not > > > > permissible in OWL. > > > > > > > > > > > > Using a role as a value for subjectOf will make the role > node an > > > instance of > > > > the domain of about, which doesn't include Role. Roles > fall > > > outside the > > > > purview of OWL. > > > > > > > > > > > > What I think has to be done for "strings as things" is to > > > preprocess them as > > > > an anonymous node with the string as the value of some > > description > > > > property. > > > > Roles need to be short-circuited and the role values > > eliminated. > > > If the > > > > role > > > > values are to be retained then some sort of fancy > > reification has > > > to be > > > > introduced. > > > > > > > > > > > > But a lot of this is guesswork, as it is unclear just > what > > "strings as > > > > things" > > > > and Roles mean in schema.org <http://schema.org> > > <http://schema.org> > > > <http://schema.org>. (I haven't looked > > > > closely at the use of URLs > > > > as stand-ins for objects but my guess is that that is > similar to > > > "strings as > > > > things".) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OWL makes a distinction between object and data values, > and this > > > distinction > > > > has to be carried through to the ontology, where there > are > > classes and > > > > datatypes. As far as I can tell Text should be a > datatype. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/06/2018 07:09 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: > > > > > Just the fresh pair of experienced eyes I needed! - > Thanks > > @Thomas > > > > > > > > > > @Danbri - not “wasting a lot of time agonising", in > simple > > terms > > > I’m just > > > > > [selfishly] trying to get a useful version to load > > into Protégé and > > > > > hopefully helping a few others at the same time. > > > > > > > > > > @Peter thanks for your thoughtful questions. As you > can see > > > from the > > > > above > > > > > the prime simple objective is to get it visible > > in Protégé. Beyond > > > > that, it > > > > > is to capture the class and property hierarchy of > Schema.org > > > including > > > > > the multiple domain/ranges of properties defined [In > > Schema.org] > > > using > > > > > domainIncludes & rangeIncludes, in a way that a tool > > > like Protégé can cope > > > > > with. As for ranges, it includes the assumption that > > properties, in > > > > > addition to the defined range(s), also have Text, URL, > and > > Role > > > > included in > > > > > their range. > > > > > > > > > > Once I’ve done it, I want to add the simple generating > code to > > > the Schema > > > > > scripts run at release time so that it can be kept up > to date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Richard. > > > > > > > > > > Richard Wallis > > > > > Founder, Data Liberate > > > > > http://dataliberate.com > > > > > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis > > > > > Twitter: @rjw > > > > > > > > > > On 6 June 2018 at 14:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > > > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> > > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>> > > > > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> > > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> > > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>>>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It's hard to say much about the file without > knowing > > what it is > > > > supposed to > > > > > capture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is supposed to capture the class and property > > hierarchy and > > > > property > > > > > restrictions or schema.org <http://schema.org> > > <http://schema.org> > > > <http://schema.org> > > > > <http://schema.org>, but not necessarily in a > > > > > form compatible with RDFS > > > > > or OWL? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it supposed to faithfully encode the model > theory of > > > schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> > > > > <http://schema.org> > > > > > <http://schema.org> in OWL? > > > > > If so, where is the document for this theory? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it supposed to capture "strings as things" or > Roles? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does it view property domains and ranges? As > > axioms? > > > As strict > > > > > constraints? As soft constraints? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also move from rdf/xml to turtle, which is > > easier to > > > write and > > > > > easier > > > > > to read. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/06/2018 05:05 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: > > > > > > Calling folks with more OWL experience than me! > > > > > > > > > > > > The schema.org <http://schema.org> > > <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> > > > <http://schema.org> > > > > <http://schema.org> site has an OWL > > > > > definition file that has > > > > > > not been maintained since April > > > > 2014: http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl > > > > <http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl>. > > > > > > Also the structure and syntax of the file needs > some > > > attention. > > > > > > > > > > > > To help with the occasional questions about > accessing > > > processable > > > > > > representations of the vocabulary; to attempt to > > close an > > > issue > > > > (#1611 > > > > > > < > https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1611 > > > > > > > <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1611>>); and to > > > > help with a > > > > > > personal project, I have had a look at producing > an > > up to > > > date, > > > > improved, > > > > > > maintainable version of the file. > > > > > > > > > > > > My first attempt can be downloaded/viewed > > > > > > > > > here: > https://s3.amazonaws.com/rjwPublicData/public/schemaorg.owl > > > > > > > <https://s3.amazonaws.com/rjwPublicData/public/schemaorg.owl> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am looking for comments, suggestions, and help > > around a few > > > > aspects of > > > > > > this work in progress: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Is it generally ‘a good owl file’ > > > > > > > > > > > > * Should it contain more/less info about > > the vocabulary and > > > > its terms > > > > > > > > > > > > * Specifically with reference to > domainIncludes and > > > rangeInclude - > > > > > mapped > > > > > > to rdfs:domain & rdfs:range with > > owl:unionOfcollections: > > > > > > > > > > > > o Is this the best/only way to represent > multiple > > > domain & > > > > > ranges for > > > > > > an objectproperty? > > > > > > > > > > > > o Have I got the syntax correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > * Several people use Protégé > > > <https://protege.stanford.edu/> as a > > > > > tool for > > > > > > this kind of effort - I am trying to identify > > what syntax, > > > > will enable > > > > > > this tool to recognise the multiple > > domain/ranges when > > > importing > > > > > this file. > > > > > > > > > > > > If anyone out there with more OWL experience > than me > > (not > > > > difficult), > > > > > could > > > > > > spend a few minutes taking a look at this and > > commenting, it > > > > would be > > > > > > greatly appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard Wallis > > > > > > Founder, Data Liberate > > > > > > http://dataliberate.com > > > > > > Linkedin: > http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis > > > > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis> > > > > > > Twitter: @rjw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 15:44:25 UTC