Re: Syntactic Mapping vs Class level

   
   [Marty Hagenston]
	 Maybe I read too much into the OWL Guide about how "high up" the =
   articulation should occur. ...
	 Here's my example:=20

    Here's my example:

    I have a class 9mm Automatic Pistol that has instances Beretta 92FS;
    Browning Highpower; SigSauer P226 and Glock 17.  All specific 9mm
    pistols much like your specific horse types.  

Actually, I meant specific _horses_, but the same point is valid for
subclasses as for instances (but see caveat below).

    I also have another
    class, Beretta 92 Series Pistol, in a separate ontology that has
    instances FS, MFS, DS, D all of which are more specific types of the
    Beretta 92 Series.  Originally I was trying to declare the 9mm
    Automatic Pistol Class an equivalentClass of the Beretta 92 Series
    class.  While both are SIMILAR, they are NOT equivalent because they
    do not have precisely the same instances.

I don't know anything about guns, but it sounds like the Beretta 92
Series is a subclass of 9mm Automatic Pistol.  Is every instance of
Beretta 92 also an instance of 9mm Automatic Pistol?

    So my solution was to take the instance Beretta 92FS from the
    Automatic Pistol Class and the FS instance from the Beretta 92 Series
    Class and articulate at that level:

	  <Auto_Pistol rdf:ID="Beretta 92FS">
		  <owl:sameIndividualAs rdf:resource="&Beretta;FS"/>
	  (I had the proper ns defined to make this shorthand work)
	  </Auto_Pistol>

    Is there a better way? 

Not that I know of.

    Is it true that if the articulation is done at the instance level,
    since in most cases this is the most granular level, granularity and
    consistency problems are avoided?

That's an awfully sweeping generalization.

One caveat: It's not clear why Beretta 92FS is an individual rather
than a class.  It seems that you will regret this choice if you ever
need to talk about subclasses of the Beretta 92FS (different models,
for instance), or about particular guns.  However, there's no logical
inconsistency in viewing the lowest-level classes as individuals, and
it might even be the right thing in some contexts.

-- 
                                             -- Drew McDermott

Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 10:58:44 UTC