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

Robert Stevens robert.stevens at manchester.ac.uk
Mon Jun 25 11:55:24 PDT 2012


You could take a look at

C. Lutz and U. Sattler. *Mary likes all Cats*. In F. Baader and 
U. Sattler, editors, /Proceedings of the 2000 International Workshop in 
Description Logics (DL2000)/, number 33 in CEUR-WS, pages 213-226, 
Aachen, Germany, August 2000. RWTH Aachen. Proceedings online available 
from http://SunSITE.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-33/.


On 25/06/2012 19:26, Jim Tivy wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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


-- 
Robert Stevens
Reader in BioHealth Informatics
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester
M13 9PL
United Kingdom

robert.Stevens at Manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~stevensr
http://robertdavidstevens.wordpress.com
http://ontogenesis.knowledgeblog.org

KBO

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20120625/6a0aaf30/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list