Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
jena-dev · Jena Developers
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want to share photos of your group with the world? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Still confused with reification (long).   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #25702 of 42071 |
I use a OntModel;
- 2 classes X and Y.
- one property hasA that links X instances to Y instances.

I have individuals:
- 1 instance instX (of type X)
- 1 instY (of type Y).
- 1 hasA to link them together: instX -> hasA -> instY.

Now I need to use reification.
As I understand that, OWL does not manage reification natively.
But Jena does.
True?

My new model is something like :

X -> hasA -> Y
|
---> comments ---> xsd:String
|
--- from -----> Person


How can I translate that into OWL1.0 modeling?
Does it require to change the way I modeled X, Y and hasA ?

If my model with reification can be described in OWL1.0, I presume
Jena will load and understand it natively.
Will Pellet understand it too (so the classifier can operate
on the reifications)?

Then, how do I hand write these reifications in my OWL data instances:

instX -> hasA -> instY
|
-----> details -----> "it is not my business"
| |
| ------> from ----> people://John
|
|
-----> details -----> intranet://meNeither.doc
|
------> from ----> boss://CEO

instX -> hasA -> instY
|
-----> details -----> "i found another relationship with instY"
|
------> from ----> people://Mike




PS: if OWL does not handle reification natively,
and if this point is to be adressed in OWL 1.1,
does it sound stupid to use such a syntax (ie, use rdf:ID to
uniquely identify the relationship from an instance to another
via a property):

<X rdf:ID="instX">
<hasA rdf:resource="instY" rdf:ID="instX-hasA_1"/>
<hasA rdf:resource="instY" rdf:ID="instX-hasA_2"/>
</X>

<rdf:Description rdf:about="instX-hasA-1">
<details rdf:ID="instX-hasA_1-details_1">it is not my business</details>
</rdf:Descrption>

<rdf:Description rdf:about="instX-hasA_1-details_1">
<from rdf:resource="people://John"></from>
</rdf:Descrption>

<rdf:Description rdf:about="instX-hasA-1">
<details rdf:ID="instX-hasA_1-details_2"
rdf:resource="intranet://meNeither.doc"></details>
</rdf:Descrption>

<rdf:Description rdf:about="instX-hasA_1-details_2">
<from rdf:resource="boss://CEO"></from>
</rdf:Descrption>

<rdf:Description rdf:about="instX-hasA-2">
<details rdf:ID="instX-hasA_2-details_1">i found another relationship
with instY</details>
</rdf:Descrption>

<rdf:Description rdf:about="instX-hasA_2-details_1">
<from rdf:resource="people://Mike"></details>
</rdf:Descrption>

Any help is very welcome.
(Thx for reading this loooong mail :)



Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:06 pm

olivier.rossel@...
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #25702 of 42071 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

I use a OntModel; - 2 classes X and Y. - one property hasA that links X instances to Y instances. I have individuals: - 1 instance instX (of type X) - 1 instY...
Contact DaTao.net
olivier.rossel@...
Send Email
Oct 12, 2006
1:07 pm

... OK. (Shouldn't it be called `hasY`?) ... OK. ... What for? ... I don't know what "manage reification natively" means. ... I don't know, since I don't know...
Chris Dollin
kers_ihy
Offline Send Email
Oct 12, 2006
1:24 pm

Ok. So I will try to explain my model in a OWL manner. My model is described in OWL 1.0. The model is written by hand. The model is to be loaded by Jena, and...
Contact DaTao.net
olivier.rossel@...
Send Email
Oct 12, 2006
2:28 pm

... It turns out, I was wrong to suggest that using the reification vocabulary puts you outside OWL/DL into OWL/full. Sorry about that. Because RDF doesn't...
Dave Reynolds
derihy
Offline Send Email
Oct 12, 2006
8:15 pm

[I stared to reply to this, but must have hit send by accident halfway through and the mail got lost. I mention this in case you end up with two responses, one...
Dave Reynolds
derihy
Offline Send Email
Oct 12, 2006
8:53 pm

... put ... But is this really the case? First, I want to mention that I read the section in OWL-Semantics cited by you above and find it a little vague, so I...
Michael Schneider
m_schnei1992
Offline Send Email
Oct 13, 2006
2:44 pm

... I think you mean 'rdf:Statement' ... Ah but an OWL reasoner doesn't know anything about rdf:Statement at all so just that model will validate as OWL/full...
Dave Reynolds
derihy
Offline Send Email
Oct 13, 2006
3:17 pm

... Oh, I see! Yes, there are several RDF constructs which OWL does not know about, and rdf:{Statement|subject|predicate|object} are such unknown things. I...
Michael Schneider
m_schnei1992
Offline Send Email
Oct 16, 2006
4:30 pm

... No, it is rather different from that. Because OWL is *encoded* in RDF there are a lot of restrictions on where you can use RDF constructs for fear of their...
Dave Reynolds
derihy
Offline Send Email
Oct 16, 2006
7:22 pm

... Chris is right to point out the ambiguity in your specification but assuming you really do mean to annotate the relationships then yes you would have to...
Dave Reynolds
derihy
Offline Send Email
Oct 12, 2006
3:15 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help