[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RE: OWL-ish question

• To: "'Thomas B. Passin'" <tpassin@c...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: RE: OWL-ish question
• From: "Linda Grimaldi" <grimlinda@e...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:57:21 -0600
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <009101c35658$9634cf60$6401a8c0@tbp1>
• Reply-to: <grimlinda@e...>

Doesn't a restriction apply to all members of a class?  What I am
looking for will vary in value by instance, not by class.  And since
instances will be added all the time, I can't subclass and lump
together. 

I do have a model that will work.

I think.  

It looks like:

<ClassA rdf:ID="thisClass">
	<hasMappingto rdf:resource="#thatClass"/>
	<hasMappingClass>
		<MappingClass>
			<hasTarget rdf:resource="#thatClass"/>
			<usesJavaClass>org.com.blah</hasJavaClass>
		</MappingClass>
	</hasMappingClass>
</ClassA>

The first property is transitive and has a symmetric subproperty.  This
allows for easy navigation across classes.  The second links the mapping
class to the source class.  My problem was (poorly expressed) that I
wanted to get rid of the redundancy of this model.  Target is
essentially expressed twice.  The motivation for the first property is
the performance of inference rules that will navigate across multiple
instances using the transitivity and symmetry properties of that first
relation.  Both those characteristics get lost, at least in terms of
formal OWL definition- yes, I could still write slightly more complex
rules that would do the job- if all I do is the second property.   Or at
least that's what I believe to be true- it's my first stab at doing more
than reading the spec.

Ah, for true ternary relations  :>).



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@c...] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:08 PM
To: xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re: RE:  OWL-ish question

[Jonathan Borden]
>
> The difference in functionality between an owl:Restriction and an
rdfs:range
> is that an rdfs:range applies globably to a property, whereas a
restriction
> is local to the class being defined.
>

Yes, that is what I thought Linda was trying to express - since she was
treating a property as a class to be restricted - but maybe that notion
was
not quite what she had in mind.

Cheers,

Tom P



-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: OWL-ish question
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • Re: RE: OWL-ish question
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Error when trying to set DOM node value
• Next by Date: Merge XML with Microsoft Word Templates ?
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: OWL-ish question
• Next by thread: Re: RE: OWL-ish question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread