[protege-discussion] Jim Likes Dogs

[Timothy Redmond]

On 6/25/12 9:13 AM, Jim Tivy wrote:
> [Jim Tivy] Nothing complex just the subject predicate object "Jim likes
> Dogs".
> ObjectPropertyAssertion( :likes :Jim :Dogs) or "Dog" singular if you like.

You can certainly state this.  OWL 2 allows punning so this is fine.  
But such an assertion would not have anything to do with whether Jim 
likes individuals in the Dogs class.  So to me such an axiom would not 
be a representation of the English phrase "Jim likes Dogs".  By making 
the assertion in this way you are deliberately avoiding stating a 
relationship between Jim and individual Dogs.  If I saw such an ontology 
I would understand it as OWL but be unsure of your modeling intention.

> 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:).

But that is just what you are trying to avoid stating by using the 
object property assertion.  Again if you want to state that Jim likes 
all Dogs then you could say (using the functional owl syntax this time):

        SubClassOf(:Dogs ObjectHasValue(ObjectInverseOf(:likes) :jim))



> In OWL2 what are you saying here - is this a ClassAssertion a Property or...
>
>
> Individual: Jim
>       Types:
>           likes min 2 Dog

He is using the Manchester OWL syntax as I was.  It is a class assertion 
and stated in the functional syntax it looks like this:

           ClassAssertion(ObjectMinCardinality(2 :likes :Dogs) :jim)


It says that Jim likes at least two dogs.  He stated it this way because 
you didn't say "Jim likes a dog" but "jim likes dogs" which might be 
interpreted as "jim likes several (more than one) dog".

-Timothy