RE: Representing distinct item states

Hi Jason

> By using "sameIndividualAs", I was hoping to make explicit 
> that the current
> version of X is X, version Y.  In other words, you can follow the
> "sameIndividualAs" arc at any time to determine the current 
> revision of a
> particular item.

Sure, I understand that. It's just by using that property an OWL processor
will infer a set of entailments that you don't intend. So you really want to
avoid that. Dave R was quite right, I got the class hierarchy relationship
upside down for owl:sameIndividualAs and dcq:modificationOf. 
 
> Perhaps there should be a sub-property of hasModification and of
> sameIndividualAs that is currentModification?

That's a different question. In this system, I don't think you want to
modify the graph. Once something is written to the graph, it is never
deleted. That way you guarantee the history system. So this means that if
you need to determine current modification in the history system, you do it
by a query rather than altering the graph. All graph manipulations are non
destructive. 

Having a property like currentModification would entail altering the graph
when a new modification was needed. So my guess is that should be avoided.

Dr Mark H. Butler
Research Scientist                HP Labs Bristol
mark-h_butler@hp.com
Internet: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/

>

Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 09:40:03 UTC