Michael,
Yours is actually much more defined than most of the ones I see (some from
our Siemens peers in Munich). They tell me that when using
owl:equivalentClass in this way all of the items in a taxonomy can answer
to the same question equally without having to use SPARQL up the parent
class hierarchy. Seeing as the guys at TQ know the language (OWL and its
variants) much better than I, and since I tend to build ontologies the way
they do (I am assuming that imitation is the highest form of flattery),
which is also your second approach:
Or better:
:BigSpace
rdf:type owl:Class ;
owl:disjointWith :SmallSpace ;
rdfs:subClassOf [
rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:allValuesFrom [
rdf:type rdfs:Datatype ;
owl:onDatatype xsd:float ;
owl:withRestrictions (
[
xsd:minExclusive "150.0"^^xsd:float ;
]
) ;
] ;
owl:onProperty :area ;
] ;
.
that they have some knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of each
approach. I have never seen a Best Practices design argument of when to use
which approach and am dying to know.
Jack
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:06:41 AM UTC-7, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:
>
> Hi Jack,
>
> In my case I do it this way because I am under the (maybe false)
> assumption that it is THE way to do it 😊.
> What would be better though here, is to make it a subclass iso a
> equivalentclass. Because not all things with such restricted area are
> actually a bigspace....
>
> Or is that maybe what you actually meant?
>
> If you know of any other way to specify such a class more directly than
> via subclass/equivalent class I am very interested!
>
> (I also compared with examples in owl spec like involving definition of
> "Teenager").
>
> Greetings, Michel
>
> Just for info, I now have:
>
> :BigSpace
> rdf:type owl:Class ;
> owl:disjointWith :SmallSpace ;
> owl:equivalentClass [
> rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
> owl:allValuesFrom [
> rdf:type rdfs:Datatype ;
> owl:onDatatype xsd:float ;
> owl:withRestrictions (
> [
> xsd:minExclusive "150.0"^^xsd:float ;
> ]
> ) ;
> ] ;
> owl:onProperty :area ;
> ] ;
> .
> Or better:
> :BigSpace
> rdf:type owl:Class ;
> owl:disjointWith :SmallSpace ;
> rdfs:subClassOf [
> rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
> owl:allValuesFrom [
> rdf:type rdfs:Datatype ;
> owl:onDatatype xsd:float ;
> owl:withRestrictions (
> [
> xsd:minExclusive "150.0"^^xsd:float ;
> ]
> ) ;
> ] ;
> owl:onProperty :area ;
> ] ;
> .
>
>
>
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
>
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E [email protected] <javascript:>
> Location
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto:
> [email protected] <javascript:>] On Behalf Of Jack Hodges
> Sent: vrijdag 25 augustus 2017 16:01
> To: TopBraid Suite Users <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> Subject: [topbraid-users] constraint violation
>
> Although I would do this kind of thing with SHACL I have a larger (I
> think) question. I see a lot of people embedding content logic in
> owl:equivalentClass expressions when they have no actual class. Why do
> people do that? Wouldn't it be better to have an area property and then
> define the BigPump class as having an area greater than the said amount? I
> could see, if you wanted to have some numeric evaluation and didn't want
> that numeric evaluation become part of the class taxonomy making a rule or
> a validator, but I do not understand this phantom class in an equivalence
> statement and I see it all the time. What is the rationale, and what is the
> best practice in class design?
>
> Jack
>
> --
> 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] <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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.
