Re: [topbraid-users] Re: domain ' inheritance'
Actually, it is the other way around. Restriction on a class applies to all of its subclasses, domain or range declarations don't necessarily apply to all subclasses. This is according to the standard semantics. However, in practical use, people typically only say that a property is in a domain or a range of a class if it is true for all it's subclasses. This is a point Holger is making. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 22, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Jack Hodges wrote: > > All aspects of object orientation (encapsulation, inheritance, and > polymorphism) apply equally to class members and methods. In OWL/RDF we have > class inheritance but we don't have the structure of a class such as we do in > programming languages. The triple of S-P-O is a very simple structure, so > there isn't any structure to encapsulate nor is there structure to use > differently in different contexts (polymorphism). I mention this not to > negate anything you have said but because some of the things you said about > OO and OWL/RDF aren't completely clear. So to be clear, when we define > restrictions on a class (e.g., that some class B has a restriction of > predicate p), that restriction is not inherited on a subclass B1 of B. True? > > On the other hand, when we define a predicate p with a domain of A, any > subclass A1 of A will apply equally as a domain of p. True? > > These two contexts are different. > > Jack > >> On Friday, June 20, 2014 2:23:57 AM UTC-7, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: >> Hi Holger, Scot >> >> >> >> We are very eager to get some info on our earlier posted issue: >> >> >> >> “ >> >> When I define a class A and a subclass A1 >> >> And a property P with domain A >> >> In tbc when instantiating A1 the property is shown. Why is that? >> >> My assumption is that this property is not ‘inherited’ to its subclass. >> >> Is that right? >> >> “ >> >> Thx very much for your consideration. In NL were working on a national >> modeling guide in which linking classes <> properties is an important issue >> (typically difficult/different for many involved since it differs from >> tradiotional modeling approaches). >> >> Thx Michel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u >> niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, >> wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te >> verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van deze >> e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke aard ook, >> die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van >> berichten. >> >> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you >> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are >> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no >> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it >> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the >> electronic transmission of messages. > > -- > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise > Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, > SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. > To post to this group, send email to > topbraid-users@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[topbraid-users] Re: domain ' inheritance'
All aspects of object orientation (encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism) apply equally to class members and methods. In OWL/RDF we have class inheritance but we don't have the structure of a class such as we do in programming languages. The triple of S-P-O is a very simple structure, so there isn't any structure to encapsulate nor is there structure to use differently in different contexts (polymorphism). I mention this not to negate anything you have said but because some of the things you said about OO and OWL/RDF aren't completely clear. So to be clear, when we define restrictions on a class (e.g., that some class B has a restriction of predicate p), that restriction is not inherited on a subclass B1 of B. True? On the other hand, when we define a predicate p with a domain of A, any subclass A1 of A will apply equally as a domain of p. True? These two contexts are different. Jack On Friday, June 20, 2014 2:23:57 AM UTC-7, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > > Hi Holger, Scot > > > > We are very eager to get some info on our earlier posted issue: > > > > “ > > When I define a class A and a subclass A1 > > And a property P with domain A > > In tbc when instantiating A1 the property is shown. Why is that? > > My assumption is that this property is not ‘inherited’ to its subclass. > > Is that right? > > “ > > Thx very much for your consideration. In NL were working on a national > modeling guide in which linking classes <> properties is an important issue > (typically difficult/different for many involved since it differs from > tradiotional modeling approaches). > > Thx Michel > > > > > > > Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u > niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is > toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht > te verwijderen. TNO aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor de inhoud van > deze e-mail, de wijze waarop u deze gebruikt en voor schade, van welke aard > ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch > verzenden van berichten. > > > > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you > are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you > are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no > liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use > it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > electronic transmission of messages. > > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [topbraid-users] domain ' inheritance'
Also *personal* opinion :-) The main characteristics of OO (i.e.polymorphism, encapsulation, information hiding) are really not applicable to OWL as they are specifications about behaviour, not data. OWL is data with no defined behaviour and so not really OO IMPO. I guess you can think of OO inheritance is a cousin of subset+inference and, as Holger said, in many case the practical differences are minimal. However, there are other cases where using OWL can be very non-OO e.g. 1) no concept of a required "type" so an individual can be a member of classes in very different ontologies and 2) OWL individuals are not required to have a pre-defined "type" and you can then infer its type(s) based on a property with domain or range being used with that individual. Note that it's been my experience when creating OWL ontologies, regardless of their use, that it's better to think in terms of subset rather than inheritance. Drawing Venn diagrams is usually the best way to understand data, for example do the necessary analysis to separate subClassOf from partOf relationships between things. Cheers, David UK +44 7788 561308 US +1 336 283 0606 On 22 Jun 2014, at 10:10, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> Thx very much for your consideration. In NL were working on a national >> modeling guide in which linking classes <> properties is an important issue >> (typically difficult/different for many involved since it differs from >> tradiotional modeling approaches). >> > In my *personal* opinion you may also chose to simply ignore the official > RDFS semantics and apply the intuitive and mainstream interpretation of > rdfs:domain as a way to "attach" a property to a class, rdfs:range to > restrict the values and rdfs:subClassOf as inheritance. While officially this > is not entirely correct, it will most likely have no negative side effects to > start with that (object-oriented) point of view for your ontologies. After > more than ten years of semantic technology standards, the official formal > semantics have not become widely used and in my *personal* opinion this is > never going to change either. See the increasing popularity of JSON-LD and > "simple" ontologies like schema.org to see where this is going. > > Holger > > > -- > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise > Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, > SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. > To post to this group, send email to > topbraid-users@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [topbraid-users] domain ' inheritance'
Thx very much for your consideration. In NL were working on a national modeling guide in which linking classes <> properties is an important issue (typically difficult/different for many involved since it differs from tradiotional modeling approaches). In my *personal* opinion you may also chose to simply ignore the official RDFS semantics and apply the intuitive and mainstream interpretation of rdfs:domain as a way to "attach" a property to a class, rdfs:range to restrict the values and rdfs:subClassOf as inheritance. While officially this is not entirely correct, it will most likely have no negative side effects to start with that (object-oriented) point of view for your ontologies. After more than ten years of semantic technology standards, the official formal semantics have not become widely used and in my *personal* opinion this is never going to change either. See the increasing popularity of JSON-LD and "simple" ontologies like schema.org to see where this is going. Holger -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
