Theoharis2008graph Joshua Taylor 2
From Semantic Portal Wiki
- Question is for the Presentation: Theoharis2008graph presented by Tim Lebo 4 dec 2008
- Question is asked by: Joshua Taylor
- The Question is: The analysis on the class hierarchy is, presumably, based on
rdfs:subClassOf, as well as some OWL properties. (On page 1 they listowl:unionOfandowl:intersectionOf, but it's not clear whether these are the only two they consider.) One goal of the authors' is to automatically generate realistic schemata. If they generate a class hierarchy using just RDFS vocabulary, they will necessarily be generating a consistent ontology. If they use only RDFS,owl:unionOf, andowl:intersectionOf, they will generate a consistent ontology (I think). However, if they start to analyze and include, e.g.,owl:disjointWith, they can begin to generate inconsistent ontologies. 1) Are they already performing analysis with the features of OWL that could express inconsistencies? 2) How might they avoid generating inconsistent ontologies (aside from simply checking the consistency of an ontology once it's been generated)?
owl:unionOf, and
owl:intersectionOf, they will generate a consistent ontology (I think). However, if they start to analyze and include, e.g., owl:disjointWith, they can begin to generate inconsistent ontologies. 1) Are they already performing analysis with the features of OWL that could express inconsistencies? 2) How might they avoid generating inconsistent ontologies (aside from simply checking the consistency of an ontology once it's been generated)?'>Facts about Theoharis2008graph Joshua Taylor 2RDF feed
| Question asked | The analysis on the class hierarchy is, pr … The analysis on the class hierarchy is, presumably, based on rdfs:subClassOf, as well as some OWL properties. (On page 1 they list owl:unionOf and owl:intersectionOf, but it's not clear whether these are the only two they consider.) One goal of the authors' is to automatically generate realistic schemata. If they generate a class hierarchy using just RDFS vocabulary, they will necessarily be generating a consistent ontology. If they use only RDFS, owl:unionOf, and owl:intersectionOf, they will generate a consistent ontology (I think). However, if they start to analyze and include, e.g., owl:disjointWith, they can begin to generate inconsistent ontologies. 1) Are they already performing analysis with the features of OWL that could express inconsistencies? 2) How might they avoid generating inconsistent ontologies (aside from simply checking the consistency of an ontology once it's been generated)? of an ontology once it's been generated)? |
| Question asked by | Joshua Taylor + |
| Question for the Presentation | Theoharis2008graph presented by Tim Lebo 4 dec 2008 + |
