Submissions:Literal Reification Revision as of 15:55, 10 August 2010 by SilvioPeroni (Talk | contribs) (diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Warning!

This is an old revision. Go to current revision

This pattern has been certified.

Related submission, with evaluation history, can be found here

Last modified date is: 2010-08-10

Graphical representation

Diagram

General description

Name:	Literal Reification
Submitted by:	SilvioPeroni
Also Known As:
Intent:	The goal of this pattern is to allow the reification of literal values within OWL.
Domains:	General
Competency Questions:	What is the context in which entities refer to a particular literal value? What are the meanings of a particular value considering the context in which it is used?
Solution description:	Literals are reified in proper ontological individual, expressing the literal value they refer to through a data property. This reification allows to use each 'reified literal' as subject or object of assertions.
Reusable OWL Building Block:	1 (625)
Consequences:
Scenarios:	From a Web 2.0 point of view, a tag is a non-hierarchical keyword (e.g., a string) assigned to a piece of information, such as a web document. A particular tag can have more than one meaning according to the context in which it is specified. Let us consider the following two article from Wikipedia: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28novel%29 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton The tag 'Paris' can be added to both articles, of course, but it brings with itself two different meanings, even though it is exactly the same string that has been used. In the above example, we want to say that 'Paris' is a first name of the person document 2) is about (i.e., Paris Hilton), while in document 1) 'Paris' is the name of the city in which the subject of the document (the novel 'Ulysses' by James Joyce) was published the very first time. Using the reified literal pattern, we can express tags as proper individuals of the class 'Literal' (or of a specific subclass of it, such as 'Tag'), connecting them when refer to the same literal value. Writing the previous example down in a Turtle format, we could have: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28novel%29> a foaf:Document ; prism:keyword :parisTag1 . <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton> a foaf:Document ; prism:keyword :parisTag2 .  :parisTag1 a litre:Literal ; litre:hasLiteralValue "Paris" ; a [ a skos:Concept ; skos:definition "the name associated to a particular city"@en ] .  :parisTag2 a litre:Literal ; litre:hasSameLiteralValueAs :parisTag1 ; a [ a skos:Concept ; skos:definition "the first name of a person"@en ] .
Known Uses:
Web References:
Other References:
Examples (OWL files):
Extracted From:
Reengineered From:
Has Components:
Specialization Of:	Submissions:Region
Related CPs:	Submissions:Region

Elements

The Literal Reification Content OP locally defines the following ontology elements:

Scenarios

Scenarios about Literal Reification

No scenario is added to this Content OP.

Reviews

Reviews about Literal Reification

There is no review about this proposal.

Some subquery has no valid condition.

This revision (revision ID 9810) takes in account the reviews: none

Other info at evaluation tab

Modeling issues

Modeling issues about Literal Reification

There is no Modeling issue related to this proposal.

Some subquery has no valid condition.

References

Add a reference