Yes absolutely, SPIN is using what used to be called OWL Full. And
that's a good thing. Why would OWL 1 DL compliance still be relevant? As
Irene stated even the OWL 2 spec has taken a more reasonable approach to
defining OWL sub-languages, that aligns better with practical experience.
Holger
On 4/7/2013 3:01, [email protected] wrote:
Hey all,
I am about to design a Template meta-class semantically very similar
to spin:Template (although in a different domain).
I have a question about SPIN ontology design. spin:Template is defined
like this (shortened):
spin:Template a rdfs:Class ;
rdfs:comment "The metaclass of SPIN templates. Templates are
classes that are instances of this class. A template represents a
reusable SPARQL query or update request that can be parameterized with
arguments. Templates can be instantiated in places where normally a
SPARQL query or update request is used, in particular as spin:rules
and spin:constraints."^^xsd:string .
Then, resources that import SPIN, define instances of spin:Template,
for example:
:DescribeTemplate a spin:Template ;
spin:body :DefaultDescribe . # query body defined separately
as well as constraints with instances of thos templates:
:Resource a owl:Class ;
spin:constraint [ a :DescribeTemplate ] .
If I understand right, at this point the :DescribeTemplate is both an
instance (of spin:Template) and a class (as its instance is used
within the spin:constraint), although not explicitly declared as a
class. Adding an explicit class definition would result in:
:DescribeTemplate a owl:Class, spin:Template .
Is this correct? And does it mean that ontologies using spin:Template
and spin:constraint will always be OWL Full? That is what I read from
the OWL reference (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Class):
NOTE: In OWL Lite and OWL DL an individual can never be at the same
time a class: classes and individuals form disjoint domains (as do
properties and data values). OWL Full allows the freedom of RDF
Schema: a class may act as an instance of another (meta)class.
I'm far from an expert in OWL and the case I described is handled just
fine in my code, but I'm trying to understand the semantic
implications of such design on the ontologies using the templates.
Martynas
graphity.org
--
-- 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 Ensemble, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN.
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-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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
-- 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 Ensemble, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN.
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-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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
