R26 inconsistency

[Justyna Walkowska]

Hello everybody,

I am writing to remind you about my pending inquiry about the R26 property.
The EFRBRoo implementation states that:

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://erlangen-crm.org/efrbroo/R26_produced_things_of_type">
...
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P2_has_type"/>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P108_has_produced"/>a

BUT

according to the original FRBRoo specification,  R26 is not just a subproperty of P108, but of the whole chain: E12 Production. P108 produced: E24 Physical Man-MadeThing. P2 has type: E55 Type.

Regardless of the issue with property chains being a super properties to anything in OWL2, the current implementation is wrong and results in very serious inconsistencies in many places (due to domain/range reasoning).

Is the FRBRoo implementation still being supported?
I need to know whether we should continue to report this kind of issues here.

Thank you in advance
Justyna

-- 
***********************************************
                Justyna Walkowska             
         justyna....@man.poznan.pl      
                   61 858 2179                
  Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center 
***********************************************

[Georg Hohmann]

Dear Justyna,

your feedback to this list is still very appreciated!

Unfortunately we do not have an active maintainer for the EFRBRoo
anymore. Judith, who initiated the current implementation, is still
member of the list but is not responding. I'm not an expert in the
FRBR(oo) and do not have the time to go deep in this topic to verify
FRBR issues. It would be nice to fix this and future issues as a
community.

I suggest that you create a new EFRBRoo Version with Protege that
fixes this issue. If you post it to the list, I will upload it as a
new version to the website and create a persistent url.

Best regards
Georg





2012/10/2 Justyna Walkowska <justyna....@man.poznan.pl>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Erlangen CRM" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to erlang...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> erlangen-crm...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/erlangen-crm?hl=en-GB.



--
ge...@hohmann.io
http://hohmann.io

[Justyna Walkowska]

Dear Georg,

I am attaching a fixed version.
I did not fix it with Protege, Protege changes the files so much that SVN does not know which lines were in fact updated.
I commented out the faulty relations and explained it a bit in the owl:ontology section. No new version has been assigned, as I was dealing with the unversioned namespace (unrecommended but more convenient for us, sorry).

Here is the complete set of changes:

• R4 has to be disconnected from P128
• R11 from R16 and P33
• R26 from both P2 and P108

I understand you do not want to go to deep into the issues. However, this is in fact very simple. Let me explain. 
The FRBRoo spec says, for instance:

    R26 produced things of type
    Subproperty of: E12 Production.P108 produced: E24 Physical Man-MadeThing. P2 has type: E55 Type

This is supposed to mean that 26 is a subproperty of the property chain P108/P2.
Judith declared R26 as the subproperty of both P108 and P2. This causes very serious inconsistencies with domain/range reasoning. 
As a 'normal' property cannot be a subproperty of a property chain in OWL2 (other way around is indeed possible), best solution for now is just to remove the subproperty relation.

(If smb needs this information, it could be added with SWRL or OWLIM rules.)

Best
Justyna





W dniu 2012-10-04 12:25, Georg Hohmann pisze: