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] 'Emmanuelle Pellegrino' <empellegri at>: modal logics

empellegri at empellegri at
Thu May 29 05:59:26 PDT 2008

Dies ist eine Benachrichtigung des E-Mail-Servers von faktorM. · Mensch im

Folgende E-Mail ist eingetroffen:

  Absender:     "Emmanuelle Pellegrino" <empellegri at>
  Betreff:      [protege-discussion] modal logics
  Organisation: [keine Angabe]
  Empfänger:    protege-discussion at
  Kopieliste:   pellegri at
  Gesendet:     Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2008, 14:37:09 Uhr +0200
  Anhang:       kein Anhang

clamav didn't found any malware; Diese Nachricht enthält HTML-Code, der von
den Sicherheitsrichtlinien nicht zugelassen wird. Die originale Darstellung
steht daher nicht zur Verfügung. Die Nachricht wird daher in unformatiertem
Format wiedergegeben. Bitte wenden Sie sich innerhalb der nächsten 90 Tage
an Ihren Administrator, falls Sie das Original benötigen!
(mailto:administrator at

Vollständiger Nachrichtentext in reduzierter Formatierung:


Dear Colleagues,  


We are developing an ontology of architecture. The architect conceives a
project and thus not only existing real objects, but virtual objects. 


Consequently, one puts the question to know how to treat modal logics with


In Prot¨¦g¨¦, one can put existential or universal restrictions on classes ;
these restrictions are of a kind obligatory. To be member of a class, one
must [necessarily] have at least this or that (existential restriction) or
only this or that (universal restriction). 


For the moment, therefore, one can say :  

¡°Must have at least¡±; ¡°must only have¡±  

¡°Must be at least¡±; ¡°must be only¡±  

¡ú character of necessity 


We would like to pass from the necessary field to the possible field.  


In other words, how to bring restrictions on classes which don¡¯t have all
an obligatory character? 


And in complement, to express the opposite of the necessity, contingency : 

¡°Not to have to be¡±  

¡°Not to have to have¡±  

¡ú character of what is contingent (not-necessary) 


To express the possibility : 

¡°To be able to be¡±; ¡°must not not to be¡±  

¡°To be able to have¡±; ¡°must not not to have¡±  

¡ú character of possibility 


And in complement, the opposite of the possibility, impossibility :  

¡°Not to be able not to be¡±, ¡°Must not be¡±  

¡°Not to be able not to have¡±, ¡°Must not have¡±  

¡ú character of impossibility 


In architecture, to put the question of the description of the necessary or
possible character of a restriction reverts at the bottom raising the
question of a combinatory of the possible. The combinatory is the even fact
of opening on possibilities. To combine supposes to select in various
paradigms each time a paradigmatic element (one chooses this one or that
one). Then the various paradigmatic elements selected are connected. One
places this element in this place and this other at that one[1]. 


How to integrate in good logic rules born of variants, which can be



[1] In architecture, to project is to combine, it is to compose sequences
(syntagms) starting from a classification (paradigms). To project is to
choose and assemble. But any choice is reasoned; any architectural element
which is integrated into the project is selected according to criteria which
concern three big families: its utility, its beauty and its solidity.  


Thank you in advance for your answers. 


Best Regards  


E. P. Jeanneret 


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list