Fwd: Blank nodes *are* working with OWL reasoning

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: Blank nodes *are* working with OWL reasoning

David Booth
FYI.  Perhaps it would be helpful if Protege made blank nodes visible as
inferred class instances.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Blank nodes *are* working with OWL reasoning
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:52:23 -0400
From: David Booth <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>, w3c semweb HCLS
<[hidden email]>

In our FHIR RDF work, we ran into an issue in which OWL reasoning did
not appear to be working when we used a blank node instead of a URI for
a particular node.  This was confirmed with multiple reasoners.
However, based on some experiments that I did yesterday, it looks like
we have finally worked out this issue.  According to my tests, the
reasoning works fine with blank nodes, but Protege and DL queries do not
*show* the results if they are blank nodes instead of URIs.   Here is an
explanation:
http://dbooth.org/2015/fhir/bnodes/bnode-test.html

As a result of these successful tests, on today's FHIR RDF Validation
and Translation task force call, we decided that we can go ahead with
using blank nodes in FHIR RDF in places where we do not have an obvious
URI to use:
http://www.w3.org/2015/05/27-hcls-minutes.html

Thanks,
David Booth


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Blank nodes *are* working with OWL reasoning

Lorenz Buehmann
Hello David,

just something for my understanding. Do you mean by blank nodes
anonymous individuals? If yes, it might be that those are not displayed
in Protege by default, or even never shown to the user.

Kind regards,
Lorenz

> FYI. Perhaps it would be helpful if Protege made blank nodes visible
> as inferred class instances.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Blank nodes *are* working with OWL reasoning
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:52:23 -0400
> From: David Booth <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>, w3c semweb HCLS
> <[hidden email]>
>
> In our FHIR RDF work, we ran into an issue in which OWL reasoning did
> not appear to be working when we used a blank node instead of a URI for
> a particular node.  This was confirmed with multiple reasoners.
> However, based on some experiments that I did yesterday, it looks like
> we have finally worked out this issue.  According to my tests, the
> reasoning works fine with blank nodes, but Protege and DL queries do not
> *show* the results if they are blank nodes instead of URIs.   Here is an
> explanation:
> http://dbooth.org/2015/fhir/bnodes/bnode-test.html
>
> As a result of these successful tests, on today's FHIR RDF Validation
> and Translation task force call, we decided that we can go ahead with
> using blank nodes in FHIR RDF in places where we do not have an obvious
> URI to use:
> http://www.w3.org/2015/05/27-hcls-minutes.html
>
> Thanks,
> David Booth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
>
--
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Blank nodes *are* working with OWL reasoning

David Booth
Yes, the OWL specs call them anonymous individuals.

David Booth

On 05/29/2015 04:26 AM, Lorenz Bühmann wrote:

> Hello David,
>
> just something for my understanding. Do you mean by blank nodes
> anonymous individuals? If yes, it might be that those are not displayed
> in Protege by default, or even never shown to the user.
>
> Kind regards,
> Lorenz
>
>> FYI. Perhaps it would be helpful if Protege made blank nodes visible
>> as inferred class instances.
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Blank nodes *are* working with OWL reasoning
>> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:52:23 -0400
>> From: David Booth <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>, w3c semweb HCLS
>> <[hidden email]>
>>
>> In our FHIR RDF work, we ran into an issue in which OWL reasoning did
>> not appear to be working when we used a blank node instead of a URI for
>> a particular node.  This was confirmed with multiple reasoners.
>> However, based on some experiments that I did yesterday, it looks like
>> we have finally worked out this issue.  According to my tests, the
>> reasoning works fine with blank nodes, but Protege and DL queries do not
>> *show* the results if they are blank nodes instead of URIs.   Here is an
>> explanation:
>> http://dbooth.org/2015/fhir/bnodes/bnode-test.html
>>
>> As a result of these successful tests, on today's FHIR RDF Validation
>> and Translation task force call, we decided that we can go ahead with
>> using blank nodes in FHIR RDF in places where we do not have an obvious
>> URI to use:
>> http://www.w3.org/2015/05/27-hcls-minutes.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David Booth
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-user mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
>>
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user