[protege-discussion] OWL2 Classes

[Timothy Redmond]

> *Individual(myns:Dog)*
>
> *InClass(myns:Dog,Term)*
>
> *ObjectPropertyAssertion(myns:HasChild,myns:Boxer,myns:Dog)*

It could be that this is what you really want to say.  But to me it 
seems better to think of myns:Dog as representing the class of all 
animals that happen to be dogs.  A myns:Boxer represents the collection 
of all myns:Dog's of a certain breed.

Your version is better in the case that you don't think that it is 
important - or perhaps don't believe - that all Boxer's are Dogs.  
myns:Boxer and myns:Dog are just two nodes in a graph that is connected 
by an edge that happens to have the name HasChild.

-Timothy


On 03/16/2012 06:07 PM, Jim Tivy wrote:
>
> *Hi Timothy*
>
> **
>
> *Thanks for laying out the OWL2 formalisms.  I think OWL2 is a great 
> data modelling system. *
>
> *I only need to manipulate the data structure in a few ways and I am 
> happy to write those by hand.  I would like to discuss data modelling 
> first, then discuss reasoning (or rather agree not to discuss 
> reasoning as right now reasoning does not seem interesting). *
>
> **
>
> *What I want to do is represent a Thesaurus which is a common well 
> defined structure that is described many places including here: 
> http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/thesprin.htm*
>
> **
>
> *In English (not in OWL2) I think of it this way:*
>
> *There is a class of objects called Terms, some of which are in a 
> hierarchy some of which are not.  Each Term needs to have the 
> following properties:*
>
> -*Scope Node*
>
> -*Broad Term*
>
> -*Narrow Term*
>
> -*Related Terms*
>
> **
>
> *My thought is to model this in OWL2 (excuse my paraphrase of OWL FL) as:*
>
> **
>
> *Declare Class Term*
>
> *Declare Property(ScopeNode)*
>
> *Declare Property(HasChild)  // to subsume BroadTerm and NarrowTerm are *
>
> *Declare Property(RelatedTerm)*
>
> *PropertyDomain(ScopeNode,Term)*
>
> *...*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *Individual(myns:Dog)*
>
> *InClass(myns:Dog,Term)*
>
> *ObjectPropertyAssertion(myns:HasChild,myns:Boxer,myns:Dog)*
>
> **
>
> *And so on...*
>
> **
>
> *Is that enough information?*
>
> **
>
> *Jim*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *From:*protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu 
> [mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *Timothy Redmond
> *Sent:* March-16-12 5:13 PM
> *To:* protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [protege-discussion] OWL2 Classes
>
> On 3/16/12 1:22 PM, Jim Tivy wrote:
>
> Hi Folks
>
> I am looking to implement a Thesaurus using the OWL2 model.  It seems 
> the recommended OWL2 modelling is to use a class for each term..  When 
> I look at class, however, it seems that it is very weak because the 
> mechanism for attaching properties to classes is weak.
>
>
> Actually I think that the OWL 2 formalism is very expressive.  The 
> thing that you have to figure out is exactly what you mean by 
> "attaching properties to a class".   So if you have a class, A, a 
> class B and a property p you can say
>
>   * all individuals in the class A must have a p-property value:
>
>         A SubClassOf p some Thing
>
>   * all individuals in the class A must have a p-property value that
>     is in the class B:
>
>         A SubClassOf p some B
>
>   * if some individual, i, has a p-property value then the individual
>     i must be an element of the class A:
>
>         p domain A
>
>
> This is only just barely scratching the surface.  So tell us what you 
> are trying to express and we can start thinking about whether OWL 2 
> can express it.
>
>     I think I am better served to have one class called "Terms" or
>     "Concepts" whose individuals express the Thesaurus.  In that way I
>     can constrain properties and reason about these individuals more
>     naturally.
>
>
> It may be that this is true but it seems very unlikely to me.  My 
> sense is that if you don't have a rich class structure then you are 
> not going to have much to reason about with the individuals.
>
>
> I realize Class==Concept in OWL2, however I think that since Class 
> itself is not an individual that it is too weak.  What ever happened 
> to the notion of the Class Class.
>
>
> What is the "Class Class"?  If you are thinking of meta-modeling, then 
> my reaction is that I think that realistic meta-modeling is probably 
> often quite difficult to get right.  But in any case, the starting 
> point is to figure out what you are trying to say.  Then we can figure 
> out what language capabilities you need to express your concept.
>
> -Timothy
>
>
>
> Jim
>
> Jim Tivy -- CTO, Bluestream
>
> Skype: jimt.vanc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu  <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20120317/a5ab3bd1/attachment-0001.html>