Closed lavdim closed 6 years ago
Can you point to the specifics lines of code? In case of mat-lbl:DataIdentifier
would be named as mat-lbl:dataIdentifier
.
permanent, removable, white, mat, reversecoated were all conceived as individuals. Not sure yet if that is the right decision.
Ok, but in any case IMHO they should be defined. We should have a class to represent those and they should be instantiated as individuals from that class.
Also, two or three Data Identifiers are missing. I have now added the definition for hasDataIdentifier for fun (also renamed it because with me all properties begin with lower case and often with "has" in order to avoid confusion with classes), however, this kind of metamodeling is not possible in OWL. "DataIdentifier" was flawed in the first place since it had a property as domain, so we have to find another solution.
@lavdim: I thought I did that with owl:oneOf? (see classes "Adhesive" and "FaceMaterial")
I think they should be defined to provide more info on what types/classes they pertain to. Otherwise, we don't know what is a mat-lbl:permanent or a mat-lbl:removable.
see this: https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#EnumeratedClasses and/or https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37419182/reference-to-instance-in-owloneof-enumeration .
I don't quite understand -- the two links you posted do not provide more information than that they are instances of the class WineColor, either? And this is what I did by making them instances of the classes Adhesive and FaceMaterial?
The idea was to define e.g. mat-lbl:permanent as:
mat-lbl:permanent rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual (and/or owl:SomeClass, but maybe Adhesive is enough);
rdfs:label "Permanent"@en ;
rdfs:comment "Long lasting material used for the back of physical labels."@en ;
.
mat-lbl:removable ...
...
But let's keep it as it is for now.
There are some properties/values that are used but not defined: