Exactly, and even in OWL the vast majority of people use
owl:Restrictions to mean "constraint" instead of "inference". The
standards are in this respect neither intuitive nor do they address the
more common use cases, so in a sense they have failed to meet the
real-world test.
Again, this is just my personal view based on 10 years of experience in
this field, and moving from university to industry. The literature is of
course full of papers that contradict with this view point. Some of this
contradiction is historic though and practical application has moved
away from academic theory.
Decide for yourself whether compatibility with some specific OWL
reasoners is more important for your project than a useable and
intuitive user interface.
Holger
On 6/24/2014 7:59, Irene Polikoff wrote:
It is a fact that RDFS was not designed as a vocabulary for specifying
classes in an object oriented way, meaning as in ‘defining a template
for instances’. It was designed to support inferences for ‘knowledge
discovery’ - taking either an un-typed resource and deriving its type
or a resource that doesn’t have all the type information and inferring
additional type triples. In other words, it was designed to support
classification.
In practical use, however, people found that they needed a simple to
use vocabulary for specifying class properties (simpler than OWL) and
they started using RDFS that way. With rare exceptions, this is a much
more common RDFS use case than the one that is about inferring class
membership.
So, the purist view point is technically correct, but practically -
not so much. What is happening in real use, now that we all have more
experience with using the standards to support business requirements,
has to trump what was planned and envisioned in a speculative way when
the standard was first developed. This kind of evolution happens all
the time with standards and with technologies in general.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Bohms, H.M.
(Michel)
*Sent:* Monday, June 23, 2014 9:40 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* RE: [topbraid-users] domain ' inheritance'
Hi Holger,
Somehow YOUR reply came in my spam box, so my response is a bit late,
But what an interesting personal view!
Still I think we run into formal problems ignoring the official RDFS
semantics.
Informal expectations might this way conflict with reasoners output etc.
Informally “Adding properties to class” by formally adding “classes to
properties (ie domain definitions)” is IMHO a recipe for problems.
If you do this and then say the properties are somehow “inherited” to
the subclasses I think things get even worse.
(I was triggered on this issue earlier when using your EVN approach
where properties are depicted as belonging to a class in case of
domains specified).
So, when you say “not entirely correct” I would rather say “entirely
incorrect”
But ok, this is just MY personal view, gr Michel
Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms
Sr. Research Scientist
Structural Reliability
T +31 (0)88 866 31 07
M +31 (0)63 038 12 20
E [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Location <http://www.tno.nl/locaties/DTM>
<http://www.tno.nl/>
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.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Holger Knublauch
*Sent:* zondag 22 juni 2014 11:10
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [topbraid-users] domain ' inheritance'
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
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[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/d/optout.
