[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Database and Ontologies [was-Re: [ontolog-forum] A problem]

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:24:55 -0500
Message-id: <C108B107.3A9C%cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
On 8/16/06 8:57 AM, "Rex Brooks" <rexb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I find this thread curiously satisfying, since it is covering a
> number of developments I have been involved with and/or following for
> several years now. The mention of Siderean Seamark, about which I
> learned a little last year, and the notion of quads, in addition to
> triples leads to what I happen to think is the next  major task that
> needs to be tackled (most likely by the W3C), namely moving RDF from
> "triples" to "tuples" to pave the way for "n-ary databases."    (01)

There does in fact appear to be a solution to this problem (which I've only
recently been made aware of myself).  Calvanese, De Giacomo, and Lenzerini
in their paper "A Framework for Ontology Integration"
(http://tinyurl.com/reamq) describe a description logic DLR with n-ary
relations that extends the description logic underlying OWL-DL without
increasing its complexity.  It is straightforward to encode DLR in OWL-DL.
For some reason this information does not seem to have made its way into the
work of the W3C committee that is investigating n-ary extensions to RDF.  I
am not an expert on OWL or DLs, but FWIW I am unable to see any theoretical
reasons why a DLR encoding wouldn't do the job.    (02)

Chris Menzel    (03)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>