Re: Unique Name Assumption

From: Ed Shaya <eshaya-at-umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:20:12 -0400

Elyes Lehtihet wrote:
> Ed,
> I am not an expert in Astronomy but I have some experience on creating
> ontologies for network management. I came to the conclusion that there
> isn't *one* correct way of developing an Ontology - It depends on the
> domain and most importantly on the domains experts.

Yes, each to his/her own, as they say.

However, there are
> some common design patterns that should be considered when trying to
> capture a domain knowledge.
> Reasoners do not take into account datatypes, so your example for
> 'hasValue = 6 or 14' will not be considered. this limitation should be
> solved with the next version of DIG reasoners and the adoption of OWL1.1
> (I suppose!).

Thanks for this heads up.

Then, as I mentioned before, the pattern that consist in
> 'systematically' adding disjunctions between sibling classes is not
> applicable if you use multiple inheritance in your ontology OR if it is
> not appropriate regarding your domain.

Right. We have to carefully decide which classes are truly disjoint from one another.

Cheers,
Ed

Received on 2007-04-20Z16:20:46