Ontology:OntoClean Meta-Property Ontology - Revision history

MichaelUschold at 22:36, 5 March 2010

2010-03-05T22:36:55Z

EnricoDaga at 16:29, 3 March 2010

2010-03-03T16:29:59Z

EnricoDaga at 16:05, 22 February 2010

2010-02-22T16:05:56Z

ChrisWelty: New page: {{Ontology |Name=OntoClean Meta-Property Ontology |OntologyOrganization=LOA-CNR |OntologyAuthor=Chris Welty, Nicola Guarino |Description=An OWL version of the OntoClean (meta) Ontology of ...

2010-02-17T17:28:20Z

New page: {{Ontology |Name=OntoClean Meta-Property Ontology |OntologyOrganization=LOA-CNR |OntologyAuthor=Chris Welty, Nicola Guarino |Description=An OWL version of the OntoClean (meta) Ontology of ...

New page

{{Ontology
|Name=OntoClean Meta-Property Ontology
|OntologyOrganization=LOA-CNR
|OntologyAuthor=Chris Welty, Nicola Guarino
|Description=An OWL version of the OntoClean (meta) Ontology of Properties
|SubmittedBy=ChrisWelty
|OntologyPurpose=To express the constraints of the OntoClean ontology as OWL axioms.
|OWLImplementation=http://www.ontoclean.org/ontoclean-dl-v1.owl
|LongDescription=The axiomitization of OntoClean in S5 modal logic entails certain constraints between classes in a taxonomy. These constraints are well within the expressive power of OWL, given the ability to view the *classes* as an "abox" and declare their metaproperties using the rdf:type relation. One very simple way to accomplish this, is to take the OWL version of an ontology, and in a text editor replace owl:class with "http://www.ontoclean.org/ontoclean-dl-v1.owl#Class", and import this ontology. Then add the rdf:type relations to indicate which classes are rigid, dependent, etc. Any OWL reasoner will be able to find inconsistencies in the taxonomy as a result.
|Justification=OntoClean was one of the first (if not the first) formal tools for ontological analysis, which was intended to clarify the different types of taxonomic structures typically seen in ontologies. The most common OntoClean distinction is rigidity. See http://semanticweb.org/wiki/OntoClean
|RecommendedBy=Chris Welty
|CompetencyQuestion=Are the different uses of the subclass relation used consistently?
|Domain=Community:Ontology
|WebReference=http://semanticweb.org/wiki/OntoClean
|OtherReference=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontoclean
}}

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 |RecommendedBy=Chris Welty
 |CompetencyQuestion=Are the different uses of the subclass relation used consistently?
 }}
 {{My references}}

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 |Justification=OntoClean was one of the first (if not the first) formal tools for ontological analysis, which was intended to clarify the different types of taxonomic structures typically seen in ontologies.  The most common OntoClean distinction is rigidity.  See http://semanticweb.org/wiki/OntoClean
 |RecommendedBy=Chris Welty
 |CompetencyQuestion=Are the different uses of the subclass relation used consistently?
-|Domain=Community:Ontology
 |WebReference=http://semanticweb.org/wiki/OntoClean
 |OtherReference=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontoclean
 }}

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 |SubmittedBy=ChrisWelty
 |OntologyPurpose=To express the constraints of the OntoClean ontology as OWL axioms.
-|OWLImplementation=http://www.ontoclean.org/ontoclean-dl-v1.owl
+|OntologyURI=http://www.ontoclean.org/ontoclean-dl-v1.owl
 |LongDescription=The axiomitization of OntoClean in S5 modal logic entails certain constraints between classes in a taxonomy.  These constraints are well within the expressive power of OWL, given the ability to view the *classes* as an "abox" and declare their metaproperties using the rdf:type relation.  One very simple way to accomplish this, is to take the OWL version of an ontology, and in a text editor replace owl:class with "http://www.ontoclean.org/ontoclean-dl-v1.owl#Class", and import this ontology.  Then add the rdf:type relations to indicate which classes are rigid, dependent, etc.  Any OWL reasoner will be able to find inconsistencies in the taxonomy as a result.
 |Justification=OntoClean was one of the first (if not the first) formal tools for ontological analysis, which was intended to clarify the different types of taxonomic structures typically seen in ontologies.  The most common OntoClean distinction is rigidity.  See http://semanticweb.org/wiki/OntoClean