Richard Light wrote: > > OK: attached is a text document containing what I think are 49 > correctly-framed declarations of equivalence and sub-property-ness for > various birth and death date and place properties. > > Are the equivalences the most helpful way round? (The "standard" > property is on the right of the expression.) If not, it's trivial to > change the XSLT to swop them round. > > More importantly, given Kingsley's comments, can we now do anything > useful with these statements? The implication is that subPropertyOf > _could_ be supported, but hasn't yet, and the doc he refers to makes > no mention at all of owl:equivalentProperty (only owl:sameAs, which > relates to classes not properties). > > Richard (Light) Richard,
We can inference over rules for classes and subclasses. I'll look at what you've sent when I have a moment. If you've sent triples then we can create rules etc.. If all is done right we might even make a nice tutorial out of this whole thing. Kingsley > > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard > Cyganiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >>> There are part/whole type relationships between some of them, e.g. >>> >>> monthofbirth and dateofbirth >>> cityofbirth and placeofbirth >>> >>> Can this type of relationship between properties be [usefully] >>> expressed? >> >> The first one not. In the second case, you can say: >> >> :cityofbirth rdfs:subPropertyOf :placeofbirth . >> >> Formally, this states: "If someone's :cityofbirth is X, then their >> :placeofbirth if also X", which makes sense. Note that it doesn't >> necessarily work the other way round. If it worked either way, then >> the properties would be equivalent. >> >>> Final question (for now): there are for example seven variants on >>> "birthDate". Do I need six owl:equivalentProperty statements or 21? >> >> A good question. In terms of formal semantics, six are enough, and >> the others are implied by the OWL semantics. An OWL reasoner would >> would take care of that automatically. But for SPARQL queries against >> the DBpedia endpoint, which doesn't have reasoning built-in, it would >> make things simpler if we had all the equivalences. >> >> I propose to leave it at six for now, but would really like to hear >> what others think about this question. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list >> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion >> -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
