Also *personal* opinion :-) The main characteristics of OO (i.e.polymorphism, encapsulation, information hiding) are really not applicable to OWL as they are specifications about behaviour, not data. OWL is data with no defined behaviour and so not really OO IMPO. I guess you can think of OO inheritance is a cousin of subset+inference and, as Holger said, in many case the practical differences are minimal. However, there are other cases where using OWL can be very non-OO e.g. 1) no concept of a required "type" so an individual can be a member of classes in very different ontologies and 2) OWL individuals are not required to have a pre-defined "type" and you can then infer its type(s) based on a property with domain or range being used with that individual.
Note that it's been my experience when creating OWL ontologies, regardless of their use, that it's better to think in terms of subset rather than inheritance. Drawing Venn diagrams is usually the best way to understand data, for example do the necessary analysis to separate subClassOf from partOf relationships between things. Cheers, David UK +44 7788 561308 US +1 336 283 0606 On 22 Jun 2014, at 10:10, Holger Knublauch <hol...@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> Thx very much for your consideration. In NL were working on a national >> modeling guide in which linking classes <> properties is an important issue >> (typically difficult/different for many involved since it differs from >> tradiotional modeling approaches). >> > In my *personal* opinion you may also chose to simply ignore the official > RDFS semantics and apply the intuitive and mainstream interpretation of > rdfs:domain as a way to "attach" a property to a class, rdfs:range to > restrict the values and rdfs:subClassOf as inheritance. While officially this > is not entirely correct, it will most likely have no negative side effects to > start with that (object-oriented) point of view for your ontologies. After > more than ten years of semantic technology standards, the official formal > semantics have not become widely used and in my *personal* opinion this is > never going to change either. See the increasing popularity of JSON-LD and > "simple" ontologies like schema.org to see where this is going. > > Holger > > > -- > -- 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 Insight, > SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. > To post to this group, send email to > topbraid-users@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > 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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- 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 Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
