People model for different reasons and there can be different types of models.
While I am quite convinced that Bold Eagle as a specie is different from a set
of all occurrences of the individual bold eagles and, thus, each deserves their
own URI, I can't prevent you from designing your models
There is another obvious Use Case...
as skos:Concept is used to classify an instance of a more general class.
Over time it becomes necessary to model the sub set of instances of this
general class that share this classification - so the concept hasnt
changed, but under the OWA and AAA principles
To be clear, “punning” is not a modelling concept. It’s just the implementation
approach that DL reasoners take to handle a class being a member of another
class. They pretend that there are two separate things (a class and an
individual) with the same URI - thus the “pun".
I’ve seen many
Thanks for the help so far.
My intuition suggests the punning is not the right solution, too. Your
email, Irene, helps solidify that. There is no doubt that the properties
associated with a skos:Concept instance would be radically different from
an owl:Class instance as you demonstrate with
Adam,
Yes, there should be no issue with SHACL.
Having said this, I am yet to come across a situation where punning is the best
or even the right approach.
Typically, when one puns, they really mean to describe two different things
that, in a natural language, are referred to using same
On 8/09/2018 8:16 AM, Adam Kimball wrote:
I've run into a few different scenarios where I would like something
to be both a class and an instance. For me, this happens when I model
something as a skos:Concept because I want to refer to the abstract
Thing but later have a need to refer to
I've run into a few different scenarios where I would like something to be
both a class and an instance. For me, this happens when I model something
as a skos:Concept because I want to refer to the abstract Thing but later
have a need to refer to individual Things. In the past, I have always
