- From: Dave Rager <drager@bbn.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:12:26 -0400
- To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Www-Rdf-Logic@W3.Org" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
- Cc: Frédéric Delahaye <frederic.delahaye@mondeca.com>
Bernard, I'll leave it to others to determine if what you are doing is valid in OWL, though I have no reason to believe it is not valid. Assuming it is valid, the http://owl.bbn.com/validator has a bug in that it doesn't handle sub-classes or equivalent properties to rdfs:subClassOf or any other language element. I'll look into fixing it. David Rager BBN Technologies At 06:19 PM 7/10/2003 +0200, Bernard Vatant wrote: >In Mondeca ITM internal management of classes, we have a generic >functionality somehow equivalent to the distinction between "abstract" and >"concrete" classes in Protégé. However, the distinction is not made by >typing the classes themselves, but by typing the class-subClass >relationship (aka Topic Map association). This means we have two "flavors" >of subclassing, supporting different technical treatments. > >Trying to represent this in OWL, I defined two properties like > >p1 rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf >p2 rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf > >Now if I have three classes X, Y, Z such as (X p1 Y) and (Y p2 Z) > >I expect from the semantics of subPropertyOf that an OWL validator would >infer: >(X subClassOf Y) (Y subClassOf Z) (X subClassOf Z) > >Meaning if an ObjectProperty q has been declared e.g. of range Z, it should >be validated if used with values in X. > >Not quite sure about it, I've tested precisely that situation on an example >[1], and my two favourite OWL on-line validators seem to differ on the >validation results. > >http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/Validator seems happy with it. >http://owl.bbn.com/validator/ is not, and sends back a bunch of "range >mismatch" error. > >Is this a bug in the validator, or is it a borderline example, or is it >that subtyping "subClassOf" is altogether invalid in OWL, or what? > >A bottom line question is to know if that could be considered a >recommended/neutral/bad practice. > >Thanks for your help > >Bernard Vatant >Senior Consultant >Knowledge Engineering >Mondeca - www.mondeca.com >bernard.vatant@mondeca.com > >[1] >http://www.daml.org/cgi-bin/hyperdaml?http://www.mondeca.com/owl/itmex.rdf
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 13:19:06 UTC