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] Datatype Properties

Alex Shkotin alex.shkotin at gmail.com
Fri Sep 10 09:44:40 PDT 2010


Timothy,

it is very usual for linguists to describe terms in dictionary heavily.
There are many properties of this kind in SKOS as I know.

I hope my ontology is well formed from OWL 2 point of view.
And I'd like to edit it with P4 editor. Well, may be later.

Alex

2010/9/10 Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>

>
> On Sep 10, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Alex Shkotin wrote:
>
>  Timothy: - Does any of this relate to what you are trying to do?
>>
>> Alex: - No. I hope we discuss situation when you need to assign data type
>> property value to class as object (something like individual). Consider for
>> ex- number_of_individuals, obsolete (true/false)...
>> And in P4.1beta there is no this possibility.
>>
>
>
> There are two possibilities.  First of all, if you want OWL to associate
> some semantics with this, you can pun.  The OWL class can be declared as an
> individual and you can associate the data type property to that.  The
> downside of this is that, other than allowing it, Protege 4.1 does not
> provide very good support for this type of meta-modeling.  I believe that
> there is a gforge ticket out to fix this in Protege 4.1.
>
> Second, if you do not want to assign a specific OWL semantics but either
> the human or a program reading the owl file has its own interpretation of
> your value, then you can use an annotation property value.  An example of
> this might be to assign an author to an OWL Class or a level of certainty to
> an assertion.  Neither of these will be used by a reasoner but they may be
> of use to people reading the file or programs using the file.
>
> In your example, you did the pun - I didn't notice that right away.  If you
> look in the individuals tab you will see the punned individual and you will
> see its data value.  The representation of this in Protege 4.1 closely
> corresponds to the owl meaning but it does not correspond as well to what
>  is intended by the human who is intent on meta-modeling.
>
> My personal opinion is that you should think carefully before going down
> the meta-modeling path.  I think that meta-modeling is often over-rated and
> doesn't give the desired results.  But there are some very important
> ontologies that use meta-modeling heavily (e.g. fma).
>
> -Timothy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 2010/9/10 Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>
>>
>> I am not sure what this thread is about so I am attaching an ontology.  I
>> wrote it in Protege 4.1.  It has a datatype property, p, and contains
>> several assertions:
>>
>>        • the class A consists of individuals whose p data value is greater
>> than or equal to 0f and less than or equal to 1f.
>>        • the class A has an individual, i, whose p data value is .18f.
>>        • the range of the class p is the set of data values greater than
>> or equal to 0.0f and less than or equal to 1.0f.
>>
>> Does any of this relate to what you are trying to do?
>>
>> -Timothy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Julian Vincent wrote:
>>
>>  I'm having trouble with attaching numerical values to classes in P4.1.  I
>>> want to add an index to each class which I can then use to estimate how
>>> similar each class is to a set of criteria, which also define the class.  I
>>> have created a Datatype but can't work out how to attach a numerical value
>>> to it.  The form I have used is that in the OWL tutorial v. 1.2
>>> (<DatatypeName> some decimal[=0.xxxx]) where xxxx are digits.  This is
>>> pretty much what's written in the tutorial text, but doesn't work.  What am
>>> I doing wrong?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Julian Vincent
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20100910/52fcadeb/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list