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 15:08:13 PDT 2012


Thanks to you and the others for the explanations.

I'll go with this answer: ClassAssertion(ObjectMinCardinality(2 :likes
:Dogs) :jim).




> -----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 12:08 PM
> To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Jim Likes Dogs
> 
> On 6/25/12 11:26 AM, 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?
> 
> This is right.  We are near the issue of the difference between asserted
and
> inferred information.  If you add the assertion that jim likes all Dogs
and you
> create a Dog, fido, then tools (e.g. reasoners) will be able to deduce
that jim
> likes fido.  The fact that jim likes fido is inferred because it was not
originally
> explicitly stated in the ontology.
> 
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Liking and not liking shouldn't really stop you from saying what you
wanted
> to say.  If you have a more concise or prettier way of saying the same
thing
> then that is good.  But I have been in situations where I needed to state
> exactly this type of thing and this is the best way I found to say this.
> 
> It is true that this is an unusual construct for an ontology.
> Oftentimes, people will view such an assertion as being about Dogs where
as
> the original English language statement was clearly about jim.
> Protege also displays ontologies in this manner.  But the notion of being
> "about" Dogs is not well-defined.  And again, it should not stop you from
> saying what you want to say.
> 
> 
> -Timothy
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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