rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jeff Thompson
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:24 AM
To: Semantic MediaWiki devs
Subject: Re: [SMW-devel] Classes vs. Categories
Thanks for the links. On biomedgt, I see that the Category inheritance
is used to make a class heirarchy:
http://
te the
> contents of the International Classification of Diseases version 10
> (ICD-10), but this isn't publicly available at this time.
>
> Harold Solbrig
> Apelon, Inc
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
ki devs
Subject: Re: [SMW-devel] Classes vs. Categories
Jon Lang wrote:
> Jeff Thompson wrote:
>> Good points about the difference between OWL DL and OWL Full.
>> So if you only want to export OWL DL, what would you do with a page
>> like the President or Dog or Wine pages o
Jon Lang wrote:
> Jeff Thompson wrote:
>> Good points about the difference between OWL DL and OWL Full.
>> So if you only want to export OWL DL, what would you do with a page like
>> the President or Dog or Wine pages on Wikipedia, which are pages about a
>> class.
>
> Place articles about cla
Jeff Thompson wrote:
> Good points about the difference between OWL DL and OWL Full.
> So if you only want to export OWL DL, what would you do with a page like
> the President or Dog or Wine pages on Wikipedia, which are pages about a
> class.
Place articles about classes in the Category names
Jon Lang wrote:
> Meanwhile, I've been approaching this with the idea of ensuring that
> OWL DL reasoners will be able to make use of the site. This means
> that SMW has to restrict its semantic capabilities to something that
> can be mapped to OWL DL. In turn, this means maintaining a strict
> s
Jeff: you raise some interesting points. Let me try to address them:
>From what I can tell, SMW is modelling itself after a subset of OWL.
This is being done for compatability reasons: if it's modelled after
OWL, then it should be trivial to export it as OWL, allowing other
applications on the we
Yaron Koren wrote:
> > Conversely, the relationship between an article on Urban Planning and
> > a City category is _not_ an "is-a" relationship: Urban Planning is not
> > a city. But while it's not a valid class/instance relationship, it
> > _is_ a valid category/article relationship.
>
> Well
Jeff Thompson wrote:
> Another example
> of a "class of classes" is Heads of State. For example, President and
> Emperor are
> instances of the class Heads of State. But President itself is *already" a
> class, which
> can have instances like George Washington.
Sorry, I screwed up this examp
Jon Lang wrote:
> Conversely, the relationship between an article on Urban Planning and
> a City category is _not_ an "is-a" relationship: Urban Planning is not
> a city. But while it's not a valid class/instance relationship, it
> _is_ a valid category/article relationship. You've voiced distast
> Conversely, the relationship between an article on Urban Planning and
> a City category is _not_ an "is-a" relationship: Urban Planning is not
> a city. But while it's not a valid class/instance relationship, it
> _is_ a valid category/article relationship.
Well, "valid" is in the eye of the be
Yaron Koren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but: your argument against using categories only as
> indicators of "class" (which is still my preferred approach) seems to be
> two-fold: first, that their ease-of-use makes them preferable to using
> semantic properties - in other words, it's
Hi,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: your argument against using categories only as
indicators of "class" (which is still my preferred approach) seems to be
two-fold: first, that their ease-of-use makes them preferable to using
semantic properties - in other words, it's a waste of the nice functional
S Page wrote:
> (Mr. Lang/Dreamweaver, welcome to SMW!)
Thank you! (And it's Dataweaver.)
> Yaron Koren wrote:
> > The topic *has* been discussed before,
> Indeed, e.g.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00503.html
>
> > [The documentation] should be updated to indicate that
(Mr. Lang/Dreamweaver, welcome to SMW!)
Yaron Koren wrote:
> The topic *has* been discussed before,
Indeed, e.g.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00503.html
> [The documentation] should be updated to indicate that this is a
> description of the way things *currently are*,
> not
Hi,
Well, again, this is only my opinion, but to use your example, if I were
designing that wiki about cities, I'd probably create a category called
"Cities", that held every page that was a city, and one called "City
information" that held pages that were on the topic of cities in general.
Or, de
Yaron Koren wrote:
> What's up, Dataweaver,
>
> The topic *has* been discussed before, but it's still an interesting one,
> and apparently it hasn't been discussed enough because there still doesn't
> seem to be consensus on the issue. :) That quote in the documentation is
> interesting - I hadn't
What's up, Dataweaver,
The topic *has* been discussed before, but it's still an interesting one,
and apparently it hasn't been discussed enough because there still doesn't
seem to be consensus on the issue. :) That quote in the documentation is
interesting - I hadn't seen it before. I personally t
I'm a newcomer here, so it's possible that this has been discussed to
death and I simply haven't found the relevant topics (although I
_have_ looked). Bearing that in mind:
I ran across the following statement on the SMW Help pages (in
particular, < http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:RDF_exp
19 matches
Mail list logo
