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] Jim Likes Dogs

Jim Tivy jimt at bluestream.com
Mon Jun 25 09:13:38 PDT 2012


Thanks for considering this.  Comments below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:protege-
> discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Schneider
> Sent: June-25-12 12:13 AM
> To: User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor
> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Jim Likes Dogs
> 
> On 25.06.2012, at 07:17, Jim Tivy wrote:
> 
> > Using classes to express what is essentially an object property
> > assertion on Jim seems wrong to me.
> >
> > I counter by saying this is a shortcoming of OWL2.
> 
> Why should it be? What are you missing? At least you can't blame OWL as
> long as you're not clear about what exact part of "Jim likes Dogs" you're
> desperate to express.
[Jim Tivy] Nothing complex just the subject predicate object "Jim likes
Dogs".
ObjectPropertyAssertion( :likes :Jim :Dogs) or "Dog" singular if you like.
It should be clear from "Jim likes Dogs" that I refer to the collective
(all) - but just 
to be more explicit I do mean all dogs even the ones that bite jim :).
> 
> If you want to make a statement about all members of the class Dog, then
> Timothy's two suggestions are perfectly OK and fully capture the fact that
Jim
> likes all (or some) dog.
> 
> If you need to distinguish between liking a particular member of the class
> Dog and liking dogs in general, you can use a different object property
and
> Timothy's first suggestion. This seems fine to me because then there
doesn't
> seem to be an obvious logical connection between this new OP and the old
> "likes": if I like some dog, it doesn't mean that I like all dogs and vice
versa. If
> you still see a logical connection, chances are that you can express it in
OWL
> too.
> 
> If you insist on using object property assertions (are you sure you meant
> "object property assertion"?), you could introduce a new individual "dog"
> and use an object property assertion between "jim" and "dog". If you need
> to relate "dog" back to the class "Dog", you can follow Timothy's first
> suggestion once again, using a different OP such as "represents".
> 
> Perhaps there is a more standard way of modelling that last one, but
> definitely I cannot agree with your claimed "shortcoming" because I don't
> see what you're missing.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Thomas
> 
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:protege-
> >> discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy Redmond
> >> Sent: June-24-12 9:00 PM
> >> To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Jim Likes Dogs
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/24/2012 12:36 PM, Jim Tivy wrote:
> >>> Hi Folks
> >>>
> >>> Can any OWL2 knowledgeable people on this list tell me how to express:
> >>>
> >>> If I have a class Dogs and an Individual Jim how do I assert a
> >>> property
> >>> assertion: - Jim likes Dogs.
> >>
> >> The assertion still appears ambiguous to me but I can express two
> > variants.
> >> The first one is that Jim likes all dogs.  This can be done as follows:
> >>
> >> Class: Dog
> >>
> >>     SubClassOf:
> >>          inverse (like) value jim
> >>
> >>
> >> Now the use of the inverse property may make this a bit harder to read.
> >> An alternative is to break this into two axioms and give the inverse
> >> of
> > like a
> >> name:
> >>
> >> ObjectProperty: likedBy
> >>     InverseOf:
> >>         like
> >>
> >> Class: Dog
> >>
> >>     SubClassOf:
> >>         likedBy value jim
> >>
> >>
> >> Another possibility is that Jim likes some dogs.  This can be said by
> > giving the
> >> jim individual a type:
> >>
> >>
> >> Individual: jim
> >>     Types:
> >>         like some Dog
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Timothy
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Jim
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu
> >>>> [mailto:protege- discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf
> >>>> Of Jim Tivy
> >>>> Sent: June-22-12 5:09 PM
> >>>> To: 'User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor';
> > 'User
> >>>> support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor'
> >>>> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Importing Time Ontology
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Brian
> >>>>
> >>>> The comments about making a superclass below are a hack if you ask
> me.
> >>>>
> >>>> I had a similar problem with OWL2.  Few people seemed to get my
> >> question -
> >>>> which made me think I was missing something.
> >>>> However, what I figured out was:
> >>>>
> >>>> - A class is not an individual.
> >>>> - Therefore you have to use classes in a simple way with simple
> >>> annotations
> >>>> (annotations can be attached to classes but not properties and
> >> annotations
> >>>> are weak (eg: cannot be modelled much unlike properties))
> >>>> - You should model your own hierarchy using individuals even if it
> >>>> is
> >>> class
> >>>> like.
> >>>>
> >>>> There was also some idea of using the same IRI as a class as an
> > individual
> >>>> and making your assertions there - but this did not seem to be well
> >>>> understood or supported.
> >>>> So I did my own tree of individuals with isChildOf properties.
> >>>>
> >>>> My fundamental question is - If Dogs is a class and Jim is an
> > individual
> >>> how
> >>>> do you say in OWL "Jim likes Dogs"??????
> >>>>
> >>>> To me, until proven otherwise all this is a shortcoming of OWL, but
> >>>> OWL
> >> is
> >>>> still useful for data modelling.  Perhaps OWL3 will solve this.
> > Perhaps
> >>> the
> >>>> answer is to make classes an individual - that is what modern
> >> programming
> >>>> languages do.  In java there is a class Object and a class class.
> >>>> I am
> >>> not sure
> >>>> how this all bears out with Descriptive Logic...
> >>>>
> >>>> Jim
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu
> >>>>> [mailto:protege- discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf
> >>>>> Of Brian Michalk
> >>>>> Sent: June-22-12 8:19 AM
> >>>>> To: User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Importing Time Ontology
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Matthew, thanks for your help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I want to restrict that value to a time domain.  How would I
> >>>>> specify that
> >>>> it is
> >>>>> 3600 seconds?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 6/20/2012 3:13 PM, Matthew Horridge wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Brian,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just add the expression
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "hasCookingTime value 3600"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> as a superclass (necessary condition) of VegetarianPizza.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "hasCookingTime value 3600"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> is a class expression which describes all of the individuals that
> >>>>>> have a
> >>>>> hasCookingTime relationship to the specific integer 3600.  Hence,
> >>>>> making VegetarianPizza a subclass of this class expression makes
> >>>>> all individuals
> >>>> that
> >>>>> are instances of VegetarianPizza also have hasCookingTime
> >>>>> relationships to 3600.
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Matthew
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 20 Jun 2012, at 13:01, Brian Michalk wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks, that's the help I needed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/time is the URL I needed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Related question:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let's say I have a class of things, like pizzas with meat, and
> >>>> vegetarian
> >>>>> pizzas.  I would like to assign a value to the cooking time of a
> >>>>> class.  I
> >>>> don't
> >>>>> want to enumerate all possible cooking times, I just want to be
> >>>>> able to
> >>>> set
> >>>>> something like vegetarian pizza hasCookingTime 3600 seconds.
> >>>>>>>   From what I can see, I can only assign something like this to
> >>>> individuals.
> >>>>>>> On 6/19/2012 1:31 PM, Fabio Aiub Sperotto wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You can't find the ontologies http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think there are in some sections of document, for example,
> >>>>>>>> look in the final of -"OWL code for the time ontology":
> >>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#calclock
> >>>>>>>> in the link: [RDF/XML]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But the file will be downloaded without a extension, then you
> >>>>>>>> need
> >>>>> renamed the file including a .owl extension. So your Protégé will
> >>>> recognize
> >>>>> the file.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2012/6/19 Brian Michalk<michalk at awpi.com>  I'm looking to
> >>>>>>>> import an ontology, which I have not done before, specifically
> >>>>>>>> the one for
> >>>> time.
> >>>>> w3.org claims to have the ontology at
> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time , but
> >>>> I
> >>>>> can't actually locate a .owl file anywhere there.  Trying to
> >>>>> import that
> >>>> URL
> >>>>> from Protege fails.
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> protege-discussion mailing list
> >>>>>>>> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> >>>>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussio
> >>>>>>>> n
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> >>>>>>>> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Fabio Aiub Sperotto
> >>>>>>>> Mestrando em Modelagem Computacional
> about.me/fabiosperotto
> >>>>>>>> www.twitter.com/fabio_gk
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> protege-discussion mailing list
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> >>>>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussio
> >>>>>>>> n
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Thomas Schneider
> Universität Bremen, FB 03
> Postfach 330440
> 28334 Bremen
> Germany
> +49 421 218-64432
> http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
> For visits: Cartesium, Room 2.56
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Zeerust (n.)
> The particular kind of datedness which afflicts things that were
originally
> designed to look futuristic.
> 
> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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