FWIW saying “owl-wise not ok” is inaccurate. To be accurate you need to say "OWL DL (aka Direct Semantics)-wise not ok”. OWL Full (aka RDF-based Semantics) does not mind.
If the intent is that a property like Height is a class (e.g. “2 metre” is the class with members being all things that are of height 2 m), then this is the same approach as found in ISO 15926 (FWIW based in 4-dimensionalism) and is indeed far beyond OWL DL. One reasonable perspective is that a DL reasoner is just a tool, not a straightjacket. In situations like this, some people partition the ontologies into separate OWL DL-compliant graphs and only ever run the reasoner over the partitions, not the whole. Others move on to using rule-based inference (e.g. simple RDFS inference then SHACL Rules) rather than using a DL reasoner. You can also use DL reasoner- and rules-based-inference together if care is taken (we showed that in the V-Con project). Cheers, David > On 27 Feb 2019, at 11:36, Richard Cyganiak <rich...@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > Are you in an environment that prescribes OWL DL? > > If not, then stop working with one hand tied behind your back! > > If you indeed must stick to OWL DL, I have nothing to offer but my heartfelt > sympathy! > > Richard > > > >> On 27 Feb 2019, at 09:05, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users >> <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> >> Someone proposed the following pattern: >> >> ex:Height rdf:type owlClass ; >> rdfs:subClassOf opm:Property ; >> prefUnit "m" ; >> quantityKind cdt:length . >> >> Seems turtlewise ok. >> Seems rdfwise ok. Guess same as rdfwise.... >> Seems owlwise not ok...giving properties other than annotation properties to >> a class. >> Could it be rdfswise ok...in case of change to rdf:type rdfs:Class? >> >> Thx for advice! Datawise it would be very welcome/handy just strugling with >> the interpretation.... >> >> Greetings michel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Verzonden van mijn Android-telefoon via TouchDown (www.symantec.com >> <http://www.symantec.com/>) >> >> 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 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 >> <mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 US +1 (336) 283-0808 -- 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.
