RE: [higgins-dev] Higgins Ontology (0.5.0) Review [Part 1]: Tom

["Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Some questions from my preliminary review.
> 
> 1. Aren't the annotation properties you defined already predefined in
> OWL?  If not, what is the difference between the ones you defined and
> the predefined ones?

This was a bug. I've deleted these.

> 
> 2. In trying to understand any given definition, I think I'm running
> into "canonical form" matters (as Jim mentioned) but I wanted to make
> sure I'm not misunderstanding something syntactical.  For example, is
> there any difference between:
> a.
> <owl:onProperty>
>    <rdf:Description rdf:about="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
> </owl:onProperty>
> 
> and
> 
> b.
> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
> ?

Yes, these are the same. 

> 
> 3. For that matter ... is there any difference between:
> a.
> <rdf:Description>
>    <owl:onProperty>
>       <rdf:Description rdf:about="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
>    </owl:onProperty>
>    <rdf:type>
>       <rdf:Description
> rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Restriction"/>
>    </rdf:type>
>    <owl:cardinality
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger";>1</owl:
> cardinality>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> and
> 
> b.
> <owl:Restriction>
>    <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
>    <owl:cardinality
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger";>1</owl:
> cardinality>
> </owl:Restriction>
> ?

They are the same. As in your previous question, a human is more likely to
write (b). An RDF/OWL editor is more likely to write (a).
> 
> 4. It looks like we could do this kind of thing throughout the entire
> ontology.  I see some classes and other things later that I THINK we
> could make shorter and sweeter but I wanna focus on the content and
> structure of the ontology for this review.  If I'm on the right track
> here, I'd be happy to condense all these and send it back.  I think it'd
> make it a lot easier to parse and understand with the eye that way.

That would be great. Before you start though I've just posted a 0.5.1 that
has a little bit of cleanup (mostly of other kinds), but there is much to
do. E.g. in 0.5.1 I've cleaned up Digital Subject:

	<owl:Class rdf:ID="DigitalSubject">
		<rdfs:subClassOf>
			<owl:Restriction>
				<owl:onProperty
rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
				<owl:cardinality
rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">1</owl:cardinality>
			</owl:Restriction>
		</rdfs:subClassOf>
	</owl:Class>

> 
> 5. For instances where minCardinality is 1 and maxCardinality is also
> 1, could we not simply state cardinality is 1?

Yes. 

> 
> 6. As we subclass DigitalSubject, will we be able to restrict the kinds
> of attribute statements that are legal on those classes?  For example, a
> People class that is restricted to PeopleAttributeStatements?

The short answer is yes. Jim asked a similar question in his email and I'll
reply more fully to Jim's on this matter.

> 
> 7. Betraying my lack of experience here ... #contextURI is defined to
> have cardinality restrictions that don't reference any specific class.
> Does this mean it applies to all domains?  I'm confused because I see
> classes that specifically restrict the cardinality of #contextURI with
> exactly the same values.

I just noticed this myself. It is junk. It has been deleted in 0.5.1

[..]