Unique Name Assumption

[Ed Shaya]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eshaya.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20070420/09558bc1/attachment-0001.vcf>