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

Re: RE: OWL-ish question

• To: danny666@v..., Linda Grimaldi <grimlinda@e...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: OWL-ish question
• From: Linda Grimaldi <grimlinda@e...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:39:20 -0600 (MDT)

Thanks for the reply.  I don't fully understand the caveat, to wit:

If the RDF in my earlier email is used at the ontology level, can I not create an instance as follows:
<ClassA rdf:ID="thisClass">
  <hasMapping rdf:resource="#thatClass">
      <mappingClass rdf:resource="#mappingClassInstance1"/>
  </hasMapping>
</ClassA>

Thus, at the instance level, the mappingClass has different values for different thatClass/thisClass pairs, and the transitivity property applies to all <hasMapping> properties?
(This is what I am not sure I can get away with- it bothers me from a cleanliness/elegance perspective, that is, I suspect it is dirty and ugly.)What I really want is a property attribute, if you will.

Thanks again,
Linda



-------Original Message-------
From: Danny Ayers <danny666@v...>
Sent: 07/29/03 12:53 PM
To: Linda Grimaldi <grimlinda@e...>, xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  OWL-ish question

> 
> Hi Linda,
I believe it is ok, but I'm less certain it'll do what you want.

> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasMapping">
>    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ClassA">
>    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#ClassA">
>    <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;TransitiveProperty"/>
>    <mappingClass rdf:resource="#MappingClass"/>
> </owl:ObjectProperty>

This part on its own :

> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasMapping">
>    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ClassA">
>    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#ClassA">
>    <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;TransitiveProperty"/>
> </owl:ObjectProperty>

is textbook stuff,

(I'd have made it a typed element meself, but whatever)

this part on its own :

> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasMapping">
>    <mappingClass rdf:resource="#MappingClass"/>
> </owl:ObjectProperty>

is *also* textbook stuff for regular RDF classes. So put them together and 
I
think it's fine. But note that the mapping class will be fixed on the
property - the same mapping class will apply for all use of the property,
i.e. it's a schema thing. Is that what you were after?

Beware too of possible problems with cardinality on TransitiveProperty.

> > I'm trying to figure out a good way to model the following
> problem type in
> OWL and would appreciate any help the more OWLish members of the
> list could
> offer.  (BTW, is there a better list for RDF/OWL questions?).

heh, a headcount would be interesting (1,2,3 swivel!)

The W3C lists are probably more OWLish : rdf-logic I think is closest,
then
rdf-interest.
You mentioned Java - are you using Jena? If so don't forget jena-dev. The
esw and rdfweb lists might also be appropriate, depending on what country
(Europe) and domain (FOAF) you're working on. If you hear of any more
please
let me know ;-)

Cheers,
Danny.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RE: OWL-ish question
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by Date: Re: more politics
• Previous by thread: Re: OWL-ish question
• Next by thread: Re: RE: OWL-ish question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread