Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-discussion] Jim Likes Dogs
jimt at bluestream.com
Mon Jun 25 11:26:39 PDT 2012
OK, it is a bit more clear. You are right that there is a larger question
of what I wish to express.
I want to say Jim likes Dogs which means for any dog ever entered into the
ontology Jim has an assumed likes property assertion eg: for two dogs: Jim
likes Rover, Jim likes Blackie.
I would imagine if I did it correctly I would not have to make these
explicit property assertions as dog individuals are added to the ontology?
Some comments below:
> -----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-25-12 9:46 AM
> To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Jim Likes Dogs
> 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
> 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
> you could say (using the functional owl syntax this time):
> SubClassOf(:Dogs ObjectHasValue(ObjectInverseOf(:likes) :jim))
This construct is the one I don't like. I don't like Dogs being a subclass
of likedBy jim. Having a class that mixes in an individual jim and a
property seems wrong. But I concede it is expressible so "wrong" is a bit
> > In OWL2 what are you saying here - is this a ClassAssertion a Property
> > Individual: Jim
> > Types:
> > likes min 2 Dog
> He is using the Manchester OWL syntax as I was. It is a class assertion
> stated in the functional syntax it looks like this:
> ClassAssertion(ObjectMinCardinality(2 :likes :Dogs) :jim)
[Jim Tivy] This one I like - no pun intended.
I like using the class expression. Unfortunately I have not done the proof
that this is better - it just seems to have more legs.
> It says that Jim likes at least two dogs. He stated it this way because
> didn't say "Jim likes a dog" but "jim likes dogs" which might be
> "jim likes several (more than one) dog".
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
More information about the protege-discussion