- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:28:23 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jim: > > Jeremy - the page http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/~uetz/families/taxa.html Ian Horrocks wrote: > > I wasn't able to run the test (I don't yet have the datatype reasoner > working), but it doesn't look like it would work, because > Amphisbaenians etc are not said to be reptiles and so would not > inherit the cardinality constraint on the reptile-name property. > > Also, I'm not an expert on reptiles (not this kind of reptile anyway), > but I guess that "Sauria" is not a reptile, but a family or genus (or > some such?) of reptile. The proposed datatype idiom has to be used > carefully in such cases because if there is a hierarchy with > disjointness at each level, e.g., if there were sub-classes of > Serpentes such as "Viper" and "Cobra" (bad modelling, I know, but > let's ignore that for now), then to make these disjoint you must use a > different property than the one used to make Sauria and Serpentes > themselves disjoint (otherwise the ontology would be inconsistent). > > I would suggest to either use reptile species in the example, or to > change the name of the property to something like "genus-name". > I updated the test as you suggested, ading the subClassOf triples, and using "family-name" and things that were reptile family's (according to the above webpage - they all in "-dae") I also increased the N to 12 which is break even point (78 triples for each). The pages are checking in at this moment. Jeremy (Correction the formula is 6+6*N)
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 09:29:22 UTC