[semantics-public] X3D Semantic Web minutes 21 OCT 2019: outreach, parent/child relationships, X3D-Tidy, comprehensive unit testing

[John Carlson]

Aha, ignore previous email, I found this.  It would seem if we had multiple sameAs it would be confusing semantically?  Not really sure.


5. *Improved DEF/USE representation possibilities*

/Next question/. Wondering: when we define nodes that have a DEF or USE, should we also define owl:sameAs for the regular naming convention of individuals that indicates graph position in the original scene graph?

For example, current form

:ViewUpClose a owl:NamedIndividual, x3do:Viewpoint ; # current
   x3do:hasParent :Group_2_2 ;
   x3do:centerOfRotation "0 -1 0" ;
   x3do:description "Hello world!" ;
   x3do:position "0 -1 7" .

would become

:Viewpoint_2_2_1 a owl:NamedIndividual, x3do:Viewpoint ; # proposed
   owl:sameAs :ViewUpClose ; # DEF
   x3do:hasParent :Group_2_2 ;
   x3do:centerOfRotation "0 -1 0" ;
   x3do:description "Hello world!" ;
   x3do:position "0 -1 7" .

Similarly considering USE nodes, we might further elaborate these relationships by describing equivalence of numbered-label with USE name and with original DEF node...  Current form:

:MaterialLightBlue a owl:NamedIndividual, x3do:Material ; # current
   x3do:hasParent :Appearance_2_2_2_1_2 ;
   x3do:diffuseColor "0.1 0.5 1" .

would become:

:Material_2_2_3_1_2_1 a owl:NamedIndividual, x3do:Material ; # proposed
   owl:sameAs :MaterialLightBlue ; # USE
   owl:sameAs :MaterialLightBlue-USE-1 ; # USE
   x3do:hasParent :Appearance_2_2_3_1_2 .

However, if we are going to call them owl:sameAs, they might not be sufficiently distinguished from the original DEF.  Perhaps subclassOf is a better relationship?

Please consider.  I will apply next pattern to all examples for further testing.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/semantics-public_web3d.org/attachments/20191102/11079a66/attachment.html>