- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:00:42 +0000 (GMT)
- To: "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian_J_Dickinson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'King . Dany'" <DKing@drc.com>, "'www-rdf-logic@w3.org'" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Hi Ian, On January 26, Dickinson, Ian J writes: > Hi Dany, > Regarding your question 5, it seems to me that you're confusing two things > (given my limited and still evolving understanding of ontologies and > DAML+OIL). Class, property and instance are the modelling primitives > provided by RDF. They provide a meta-language for defining an ontology, > part of which is a hierarchy of concepts. The most general concept is (in > DAML+OIL) "Thing". Every modelled concept is a Thing. The least general > concept is "Nothing". No modelled concept is a Nothing. Concepts are > related by a number of different relations, one of which is sub-class. If A > is a sub-class of B, every B is an A, but not vice-versa. So the bug in the > example, imho, is that Animal should be a sub-class of Thing. This sounds about right, but you should be very careful to differentiate between instance (rdf:Type) and subclass (rdfs:subClassOf) relationships. When you say "Every modelled concept is a Thing" you should have said that every modelled daml+oil concept is subClassOf Thing. Similarly, Nothing is a subClassOf every daml+oil concept. > Relations like subClassOf, complementOf, etc, are intended to describe > relationships among concepts. Given the modelling meta-language, concepts > are modelled as RDF classes. Therefore the rdf:type relation is being used > to denote precisely that: every concept (Thing, Animal, etc) is modelled as > rdfs:Class. But because it's part of the metalanguage, rdfs:Class does not, > in fact, appear in the concept hierarchy. > > As far as I can tell from the various versions, at one time DAML relations > like type were considered distinct from RDFS and RDF relations. Then in the > 2000/12 version, where there were overlaps in terminology, the RDF or RDFS > relations were used in preference. It seems to me that you're pointing out a > potential problem with this, which is: > Thing rdf:type rdfs:Class > means "concept Thing is modelled as an RDFS Class", whereas > adam rdf:type Person > means "instance adam belongs to the concept Person". Remember that the elements of rdfs:Class can themselves be classes. daml+oil classes (like Thing and Person) are just such instances of rdfs:Class. adam is an instance of the class Person. Ian
Received on Saturday, 27 January 2001 13:13:38 UTC