| [higgins-dev] Standford's Protégé and higgins0.5.1.owl |
Attached is what Protégé does to the higgins0.5.1.owl ontology.
I noticed one little inconsistency in reference in the AttributeMetadata cardinality restriction section:
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasSource"/> on the maxCardinality
vs.
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasSource"/> on the minCardinality
and they're not always as concise as they could be:
<owl:onProperty>
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasSource"/>
</owl:onProperty>
vs.
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasSource"/>
But other than that, the raw format is much more concise and is reasonably readable. The Protégé tool itself I'm still trying to figure out so I don't know how intuitive and usable it is for OWL experts but I'll try to assess that after I've played with it a bit more.
Tom
>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 8/31/2006 7:44 PM >>>
Tom wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Some questions from my preliminary review.
>
> 1. Aren't the annotation properties you defined already predefined in
> OWL? If not, what is the difference between the ones you defined and
> the predefined ones?
This was a bug. I've deleted these.
>
> 2. In trying to understand any given definition, I think I'm running
> into "canonical form" matters (as Jim mentioned) but I wanted to make
> sure I'm not misunderstanding something syntactical. For example, is
> there any difference between:
> a.
> <owl:onProperty>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
> </owl:onProperty>
>
> and
>
> b.
> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
> ?
Yes, these are the same.
>
> 3. For that matter ... is there any difference between:
> a.
> <rdf:Description>
> <owl:onProperty>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
> </owl:onProperty>
> <rdf:type>
> <rdf:Description
> rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Restriction"/>
> </rdf:type>
> <owl:cardinality
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger";>1</owl:
> cardinality>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> and
>
> b.
> <owl:Restriction>
> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
> <owl:cardinality
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger";>1</owl:
> cardinality>
> </owl:Restriction>
> ?
They are the same. As in your previous question, a human is more likely to
write (b). An RDF/OWL editor is more likely to write (a).
>
> 4. It looks like we could do this kind of thing throughout the entire
> ontology. I see some classes and other things later that I THINK we
> could make shorter and sweeter but I wanna focus on the content and
> structure of the ontology for this review. If I'm on the right track
> here, I'd be happy to condense all these and send it back. I think it'd
> make it a lot easier to parse and understand with the eye that way.
That would be great. Before you start though I've just posted a 0.5.1 that
has a little bit of cleanup (mostly of other kinds), but there is much to
do. E.g. in 0.5.1 I've cleaned up Digital Subject:
<owl:Class rdf:ID="DigitalSubject">
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty
rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
<owl:cardinality
rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">1</owl:cardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
</owl:Class>
>
> 5. For instances where minCardinality is 1 and maxCardinality is also
> 1, could we not simply state cardinality is 1?
Yes.
>
> 6. As we subclass DigitalSubject, will we be able to restrict the kinds
> of attribute statements that are legal on those classes? For example, a
> People class that is restricted to PeopleAttributeStatements?
The short answer is yes. Jim asked a similar question in his email and I'll
reply more fully to Jim's on this matter.
>
> 7. Betraying my lack of experience here ... #contextURI is defined to
> have cardinality restrictions that don't reference any specific class.
> Does this mean it applies to all domains? I'm confused because I see
> classes that specifically restrict the cardinality of #contextURI with
> exactly the same values.
I just noticed this myself. It is junk. It has been deleted in 0.5.1
[..]
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
Attachment:
higgins0.5.1.owl
Description: Binary data