| Re: [higgins-dev] Questions wrt HOWL 1.1 |
Hi,
I have been going through HOWL 1.1 and here are some questions wrt the
same:
HOWL 1.1 defines new OWL classes like Person, Group etc. Is it necessary
that context providers who conform to HOWL must derive their
implementations of Persons and Groups from the HOWL 1.1 Person and
Group?
>> Yes they should.
And if so, does it mean that one could query for persons using
http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/ontologies/2008/6/higgins#Person across
all context providers?
>>Yes.
HOWL 1.1 does not seem to have the Attribute class that was present in
HOWL 1.0.
>> Perhaps you are referring to the higgins:attribute property that was present in HOWL 1.0 and was removed in HOWL 1.1. If so, this was done to allow developers to reuse existing properties from other (non-Higgins) OWL, and RDFS vocabularies. The higgins:attribute was used as the abstract super-property of all higgins-defined properties—but it was never used directly.
As I understood the CDM, all entities in the context must be
subClassOf &higgins;#Entity and all attributes must be a subPropertyOf
&higgins;#Attribute. Does this still hold?
>> The first half of what you say holds: all developer-defined Entities must subclass Entity (or one of its subclasses (e.g Agent, Person, Group or Organization and soon Policy). The second part is no longer true —there’s now nothing special about a higgins property (e.g. higgins:correation) vs. a property from some other namespace (e.g. foaf:knows).
Thanks,
Best regards,
Rajalakshmi Iyer
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev