Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Query about constructing an ontology based on received OWL-DL fragments on your behalf
wfitzgerald at 4c.ucc.ie
Mon Feb 6 07:16:57 PST 2012
I would like your opinion about composing an OWL-DL ontology based on received ontology fragments
from other users/knowledge sources on your behalf.
Traditionally, if I wanted to use a knowledge within another ontology, I would simply import it.
However, this imports the entire ontology into my own local one, rather than certain portions or
What I would like to do, is allow knowledge received from another user with respect to a classes,
properties and individuals that I would like to add to my own ontology.
Consider the following trivial ontology scenario to list the kinds of car manufactures etc.
Lets say I define a class called "Car" and define locally a number of subclasses, for example Ford.
I would now like to receive knowledge from Ford about its cars. Imagine Ford send me new knowledge
about a new kind of Ford car called Fiesta (a subclass of Ford).
The following OWL-DL fragment is what I may receive from Ford.
That is, ford:Fiesta is a subclass of Ford.
My questions are the following:
(1) Is it reasonable to compose an ontology in this way? That is, to be able to receive fragments to
add to your local ontology. Of course there are various axioms etc that may also need to be passed
with respect to knowledge about classes, properties and individuals. One issue would be to know how
much knowledge must one receive about a class, property or individual to provide the intended
semantics and so forth. However, that aside, is what I am saying above in principle sensible or even
(2) I constructed this simple ontology using Protege 3.4.8. Having defined a class Fiesta, I changed
within Protege the URI from http://www.car.com/car.owl#Fiesta to
http://www.ford.com/ford.owl#Fiesta. I then added to the XML file generated by protege the following
What I noticed was, with the locally defined class "Car" in the OWL-XML file used "rdf:ID", however
when simulating the addition of an owl fragment for class "Fiesta" the OWL-XML file used "rdf:about".
I am not sure what is happening here with respect to rdf:ID and rdf:about. One obviously requires
the full URI and the other doesn't. Is it illegal/incorrect to also use the rdf:ID on class
ford:Fiesta? Any insight is welcomed.
William M. Fitzgerald (BSc (Hons), MSc, PhD)
Postdoctoral Research Fellow,
Cork Constraint Computation Centre,
Department of Computer Science,
University College Cork,
More information about the protege-owl