typed as property and class?

[Bohms, H.M. (Michel)]

Background

 

In our NL standard we model quantities (‘stroefheid for some asphalt lanesection/strookvak’) like:

 

:stroefheid

  rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;

  rdfs:domain :Strookvak ;

  rdfs:range nen2660:QuantityValue ;

  nen2660:hasQuantityKind quantitykind:FrictionCoefficient ;

.

 

So they become object properties (‘relations’).

 

Especially for Measurements we want to reuse SSN/SOSA.

 

In that case we get:

 

:stroefheid

  rdf:type sosa:ObservervableProperty ;

  nen2660:hasQuantityKind quantitykind:FrictionCoefficient ;

.

 

Now my question, can we combine the 2 without too many issues?

 

So we get:

 

:stroefheid

  rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;

  rdf:type sosa:ObservableProperty ;

 

so ‘stroefheid’ becomes a property AND a class.

 

Doe this case fall under “owl punning”? (like when something is typed as individual and class).

 

Do we enter OWL full or not?

 

Thx ! Michel

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Scientist Specialist Structural Reliability T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 E michel...@tno.nl 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.

 

[David Price]

On 13 Jan 2022, at 13:57, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Background

 

In our NL standard we model quantities (‘stroefheid for some asphalt lanesection/strookvak’) like:

 

:stroefheid

  rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;

  rdfs:domain :Strookvak ;

  rdfs:range nen2660:QuantityValue ;

  nen2660:hasQuantityKind quantitykind:FrictionCoefficient ;

.

 

So they become object properties (‘relations’).

 

Especially for Measurements we want to reuse SSN/SOSA.

 

In that case we get:

 

:stroefheid

  rdf:type sosa:ObservervableProperty ;

  nen2660:hasQuantityKind quantitykind:FrictionCoefficient ;

.

 

Now my question, can we combine the 2 without too many issues?

 

So we get:

 

:stroefheid

  rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;

  rdf:type sosa:ObservableProperty ;

 

so ‘stroefheid’ becomes a property AND a class.

 

Doe this case fall under “owl punning”? (like when something is typed as individual and class).

 

Do we enter OWL full or not?

 

Off the top of my head so please confirm yourself by reading the OWL spec but ...

I think so. Punning or metamodellng is about two levels of class (class member of class) as far as I know. Spec examplese are all classes. I’ve never studied/tested what you’re doing though.

Cheers,

David

Thx ! Michel

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Scientist Specialist Structural Reliability T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 E michel...@tno.nl Location

<image001.gif>

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.

 

-- 
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-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/d8bfd67d1b514465bc95bd9c6dee7376%40tno.nl.

UK +44 (0) 7788 561308

US +1 (336) 283-0808‬

[Ben Kass]

You can pun in OWL 2 Full and DL as both a class and object property - it's briefly mentioned in the documentation here at the bottom of the examples: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/#F12:_Punning
I know of one organization that will pun classes and datatype properties (no possible in OWL DL) for convenience of modeling, but when I asked around at my workplace no-one else had heard of people punning in that way, so I've always assumed it's pretty uncommon and I don't think that tooling tends to particularly like when you do it. That's about all I know about it. There is a working draft for OWL 2 online that goes into it more (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.448.2097&rep=rep1&type=pdf) but those parts seem to have been cut from the final documentation so be aware of that.

Best,

Ben

[David Price]

On 13 Jan 2022, at 16:52, Ben Kass <bk...@enterprise-knowledge.com> wrote:

You can pun in OWL 2 Full and DL as both a class and object property - it's briefly mentioned in the documentation here at the bottom of the examples: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/#F12:_Punning
I know of one organization that will pun classes and datatype properties (no possible in OWL DL) for convenience of modeling, but when I asked around at my workplace no-one else had heard of people punning in that way, so I've always assumed it's pretty uncommon and I don't think that tooling tends to particularly like when you do it. That's about all I know about it. There is a working draft for OWL 2 online that goes into it more (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.448.2097&rep=rep1&type=pdf) but those parts seem to have been cut from the final documentation so be aware of that.

Thanks for the link Ben - it does include a sensible property example, although including an example from UML muddies the waters a bit since AssociationClass built into the language already.

One clarification … AFAIK the very concept of punning is not needed when under an OWL 2 RDF Semantics (i.e. OWL 2 Full) because there is no need in the logic to treat the same URI as two separate things. I’ve seen explanations like the following in online training slides I found (there are from from Pascal Hitzler):

Punning

• Description logics impose type separation, i.e. names of individuals, classes, and properties must be disjoint.

• In OWL 2 Full, type separation does not apply.

• In OWL 2 DL, type separation is relaxed, but a class X and an individual X are interpreted semantically as if they were different.

I think all logics “beyond” DL don’t need punning as a concept at all, although I’m not an HOL expert.

Cheers,

David

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/979dce13-39dc-4a15-87b9-df5b5f4eae52n%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael DeBellis]

You can pun in OWL 2 Full and DL as both a class and object property 

No, you can't. You can only pun a Class or Property as also an individual. If you look at those examples in the documentation

they define a property to also be an individual. But you can't have something be both a class and a property even in OWL Full. 

Michael 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/46A2714D-BB97-4774-969E-44A8B941F49A%40topquadrant.com.

[Ben Kass]

Interesting--thanks for the further info! I'll admit that this is something that I've been curious about but not found much information on in the past.

Thanks,

Ben

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/topbraid-users/OPKacIsYslU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/CALGFikf8SGsw8vvBPUVO2Oa-qn0Xjqu1SdGAE-50MgRXXwGc6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael DeBellis]

Actually, I was wrong, I forgot to look at the last example, which does pun a class and a property so it is possible. 

Sorry for the mistake. 

Michael

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/979dce13-39dc-4a15-87b9-df5b5f4eae52n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bohms, H.M. (Michel)]

Thx for all your replies and moreover for the finally positive outcome as it seems!

It seems that my combination seems technically ok and not even leading to owl full.

Further views on the combination or preference of one of the 2 components (nen2660/objectified value versus sosa/objectified property) always welcome...

Greetings Michel

Op 13 jan. 2022 20:07 schreef Michael DeBellis <mdebe...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/CALGFikf_2UmJ1TV_%3DEDuRt37GTiSgcoVVEOwxpOqY_gTmN86cA%40mail.gmail.com.