Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] Protege - OWL compatible software tool

Tania Tudorache tudorache at stanford.edu
Fri Jul 18 17:59:51 PDT 2008


There is a very good tutorial for GraphWidget here:

http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/tutorial/graph_widget/

Tania

Deepti Misra wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Jonathan ,
>
> Thanks for clearing the doubt.
>  
> I have moved further and created domain ontology . At present I am 
> facing following issues :
>
> 1)  I am not able to activate widgetgraph for my domain ontology using 
> protege . While
>      I am able to see graph for newspaper case study . In newspaper 
> graph the drag and drop
>      is not working
>
> 2)  Can I save documentation of entire my ontology with associated 
> features in pdf or doc
>      file ?
>
>
> Please help me .
> With best regards,
>
>
> Deepti
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Carter 
> <jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com 
> <mailto:jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Deepti,
>
>     On your first question, I think it's important to note that you
>     are representing knowledge here and not building Java classes.
>     Personally, I often find that I model my classes in a somewhat OO
>     fashion, so the less specific things tend to be Abstract with
>     'leaf' classes as concrete. However, this isn't always the case
>     and I think it depends on your domain as to what's important. So,
>     in the example you mention, this reflects real life. I find a
>     useful heuristic is to think about whether it makes sense to have
>     instances of that class. So, yes, we want to have instances of
>     Person, but we want to use Employee as a generalisation over the
>     specific types of employee that a Person could be. 
>     In summary, I think the use of Abstract and Concrete classes is
>     even more diverse than being in reverse to the normal OO approach.
>     From a class model perspective, then can be used arbitrarily, it
>     depends on how you need to work with the instances of your classes
>     and the semantics that you wish to model.
>
>     The second question, yes sounds like the right use of the
>     inverse-slot. So you have 2 classes that you wish to be able to
>     relate by using a slot of type Instance. On the Faculty class you
>     add a slot that allows Instances of Student class (probably
>     multiple cardinality) called, e.g. 'students' and you define an
>     inverse slot on 'students'. You can have Protege create this
>     inverse slot automatically - in which case it will create a slot
>     on the Student class called 'inverse-of-students'. You can then
>     rename this to something more meaningful, such as 'taught_by'. The
>     nice thing about the inverse slot is that when you define the
>     Faculty that a student is taught by, that Student instance appears
>     in the 'students' slot of the selected Faculty instance - and vice
>     versa.
>     HOWEVER, a word of caution on the inverse slots. These are defined
>     at the slot level between the slots, not the classes and Protege
>     doesn't always do what you'd expect when you use inheritance with
>     the classes. What it does allow you to do is to override the types
>     of classes, for example, that are allowed in these slots in
>     sub-classes. HOWEVER, I've recently found it important to
>     understand that what you can't do is change or override the
>     inverse slot at the sub-class. A slot can have only 1 inverse
>     slot. This is worth considering when implementing your class
>     inheritance hierarchy.
>
>     Hope this helps
>
>     Jonathan
>     __________________________________________
>     Jonathan Carter - Head of Technical Architecture
>     Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd
>     __________________________________________
>
>     Assess your EA maturity at:
>     www.enterprise-architecture.com/EAvaluator
>     <http://www.enterprise-architecture.com/EAvaluator>
>     __________________________________________
>
>     On 9 Jul 2008, at 10:28, Deepti Misra wrote:
>
>>
>>      
>>        Dear community
>>      
>>       I am an engineering student working on my summer project and
>>     trying to understand and create   ontology using protege .
>>      
>>     Can anyone help me in understanding the following issues :
>>      
>>     1)  NewsPAper example available with protege download indicates
>>     Employee class (Abstract) is subclass of Person(Concrete).  In my
>>     understanding superclasses are usually treated as Absract and
>>     more we more down (specialises), the abstraction reduces and
>>     concreteness increases. Here, it is in reverse order! Why it is so ?
>>      
>>     2. I have two classes Faculty and Student in my project ontology.
>>     . Now, the relation....*Faculty* "teaches" *student* and *Student
>>     is* "taught-by" *faculty*. Is it 'right' application of inverse
>>     property ?
>>     How do I  input it using  Protege-editor ?
>>      
>>     Sorry for raising too trivial a query..
>>      
>>     Deepti
>>      
>>      
>>      
>>      
>>      
>>     On 7/9/08, *Tania Tudorache* <tudorache at stanford.edu
>>     <mailto:tudorache at stanford.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>         Berkan,
>>
>>         Please ask Protege-OWL related questions on the protege-owl
>>         mailing list.
>>
>>         Thanks!
>>         Tania
>>
>>
>>         berkan sesen wrote:
>>         > Dear Community,
>>         >
>>         > I use many Universal and Existential restrictions in my
>>         ontology to
>>         > specify constraints on various object properties:
>>         >
>>         > E.g. "ClassA" isRelatedto some "ClassB"
>>         >
>>         > Is it possible to use Racer/Java/Any tool to automatically
>>         infer from
>>         > the restriction above that if I have an individual of
>>         "ClassA", it
>>         > should have isRelatedto relationship with at least one "ClassB"
>>         > individual?
>>         >
>>         > I am looking for a tool by which I can enforce this restriction
>>         > without writing an explicit query (A tool that understands what
>>         > Protege-OWL is talking about, indeed). Can Racer (or any
>>         other tool)
>>         > "semantically" understand this axiom and do a consistency
>>         check on the
>>         > individuals of the given classes?
>>         >
>>         > Any replies will be immensely appreciated.
>>         >
>>         > Thank you,
>>         > Berkan Sesen
>>         >
>>         >
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         > Not happy with your email address?
>>         > Get the one you really want
>>         <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>
>>         > - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!
>>         > <http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html>
>>         >
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         >
>>         > _______________________________________________
>>         > protege-discussion mailing list
>>         > protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>>         <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>>         >
>>         https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>>         >
>>         > Instructions for unsubscribing:
>>         http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>>         >
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         protege-discussion mailing list
>>         protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>>         <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>>         https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>>
>>         Instructions for unsubscribing:
>>         http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     protege-discussion mailing list
>>     protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>>     <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>>     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>>
>>     Instructions for unsubscribing:
>>     http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     protege-discussion mailing list
>     protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>     <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
>     Instructions for unsubscribing:
>     http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
>   




More information about the protege-discussion mailing list