RE: [xdi] owl:inverseOf, owl:ObjectProperty, owl:DatatypeProperty

["Barnhill, William [USA]" <barnhill_william@bah.com>]

Thanks Giovanni. owl:inverseOf was my inspiration for $inv. Where possible we seem to be following a convention of 2-3 letter dollar words.

The distinction between ObjectProperty and DatatypeProperty is a thorn in semantic software engineers sides, and why I was against the bang usage and for a literal to be denoted by an XRef with a data: scheme, which works well, does not require extra syntax, and does not require the semantic disconnect of having two types of properties. The tradeoff costs are that the data URI needs to be parsed and that it requires a few more bytes per literal. Also in the examples in the XDI Graph Patterns document the property +age and +age! is used interchangeably, which I don't believe it can be. 

Bill
________________________________________
From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 6:20 AM
To: OASIS - XDI TC
Subject: [xdi] owl:inverseOf, owl:ObjectProperty, owl:DatatypeProperty

This might be useful to define the semantics of our $word

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#inverseOf-def

in particular, one could assume that, in XDI, $inv<someproperty> is a
shortcut for this:

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="$inv<someproperty>">
   <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="<someproperty>"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>

Likewise in OWL one can distinguish between owl:ObjectProperty and
owl:DatatypeProperty, which is roughly the same as not having or
having ! at the end of an XDI predicate, i.e. the range of the
predicate is an object or a datatype:

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="+age"/>
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="+age!"/>

So XDI should be more OWL (DL) oriented than "pure" RDF oriented...

Giovanni

> 4) MOVING FROM METAGRAPH SYMBOLS TO METAGRAPH WORDS
>
> See Drummond's email to the list and subsequent discussion:
>
>   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201106/msg00029.html
>
> Drummond summarized last week's discussion, and said that is really
> becomes an aesthetic decision by the TC, since $ ==>$is, * ==> $has,
> and ! ==> $a are functionality identical.
>
> Bill said that he is in favor of moving back to metagraph words for
> these symbols, but feels we should have separate $words for
> equivalence and inversion.
>
> Giovanni pointed out that even though RDF does not have an
> algorithmic way to express inversion, Linked Data does suggest that
> nodes that are linked also include the inverse link so that you can
> discover the relationship in both directions.
>
> Note that by itself, adopting a separate $word for inversion is not
> a solution to the RDF incompability issue.
>
> # ALL - Send your stack-ranked choice for a new $word for asserting
> inversion as an email to the list before next week's call.
>


----------------------------------------------------------------
Invito da parte dell'Ateneo:
Il tuo futuro e quello della Ricerca Scientifica hanno bisogno del
tuo aiuto. Dona il  5 x mille all'Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata
codice fiscale: 80213750583 http://5x1000.uniroma2.it



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php