A very late after-burner (I am currently involved in similar discussions and stumbled upon this thread by accident): Have a look at Uschold's "Demystifying OWL". It is a good read, especially the two pages on punning. While there is little to add to what Irene and David have said, I think it is important to stress that when people say things like "I have a set of triples, and these imply OWL Full", what really is being said is that there is a deep and serious problem with the model being used. OWL Full does not solve these problems, nor does it cause interesting things to happen. It only guides an OWL-inferencer around the underlying problems, so that it does not break down. The original intention of the underlying model is not achieved, however. Introspective tools will not behave as expected. Irene's example about the BMW 240i is hard in any formal language, because of type theory being counter-intuitive. There is nothing one can do about that. Instead of trying to out-smart the semantics of RDF, it is most often better to bite the bullet and solve the issue in the model itself --- and accept the added complexity.
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 5:31:08 PM UTC+2, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > > > > In: > > https://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/skos-and-owl/master.html > > > > its is said: > > “ > > To illustrate these patterns, let's start with the following semi-formal > conceptualisation: > > ex:mountains rdf:type skos:Concept; > > skos:prefLabel "Mountains"@en. > > > > ex:himalayas rdf:type skos:Concept; > > skos:prefLabel "Himalayas"@en; > > skos:broader ex:mountains. > > > > ex:everest rdf:type skos:Concept; > > skos:prefLabel "Everest"@en; > > skos:broader ex:himalayas. > > *Overlay SKOS with OWL* > > In this pattern, we use OWL to overlay additional semantics on the same > vocabulary, e.g. by adding the following triples: > > ex:mountains rdf:type owl:Class. > > > > ex:himalayas rdf:type owl:Class; > > rdfs:subClassOf ex:mountains. > > > > ex:everest rdf:type ex:himalayas. > > If the two sets of triples are merged, then this pattern necessarily > leads to an OWL Full representation, because an instance of skos:Concept > might also be an instance of owl:Class. > > > > “ > > > > Is the red statement really true? And if yes, is it really an issue here? > > > > (maybe it was under owl1 but under owl2 not different?) > > > > thx for advice, Michel > > > > > > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms > Senior Data Scientist > > T +31888663107 > M +31630381220 > E michel.bo...@tno.nl <javascript:> > > Location > <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707> > > > > <http://www.tno.nl/> > > 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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/f0949410-8879-47a8-96a7-535938ec117b%40googlegroups.com.
