I'm wondering whether some of these checks should/could be basket
operations. Composer has a way to find all unreferenced resources
("Add all unreferenced resources" to basket). A "find untyped
resources" would be a way to look at any (non-literal) resource
missing a type statement - or that the object of the type statement is
missing (in the closed world). Putting it in the basket does no harm
and allows one to review the contents for possible errors.
It wouldn't be 100% accurate, but perhaps more so than using OWL-DL
vs. OWL-Full.
-- Scott
> - With OWL-DL ontology/data, as our ontology changes, and
> affects the pre-existing data, OWL-Full data usually indicates some
> inconsistences--sometimes I have outdated references to
> classes/properties that no longer exist, for example.
>
> This is an interesting point. Using a DL reasoner for this type of
> checking is certainly an option. Another option would be to use some
> kind of a rule and pattern based approach that detects such "errors" in
> your model. For example, the eyeball tool from the HP Labs (Jena group)
> might help. Or, a collection of SPIN rules encoding best practices might
> be helpful. We are actually working on such a rule set. It would be
> great to get some details on which things should be checked.
>
> - untyped resources as predicates
> - untyped resources as rdf:type object
> - what else?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TopBraid Composer Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
