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 11:26:39 PDT 2012


Hi Timothy

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
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))
[Jim Tivy] 
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
ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> > 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)
[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
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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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