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-owl] Query: Subclasses or Sibling

Matthew Horridge matthew.horridge at cs.man.ac.uk
Tue Apr 3 08:58:28 PDT 2007


>
> I think dealing with individuals is more a rules engine thing than  
> a DL
> reasoner area.

I don't agree with this.  Classification of individuals is one of the  
key inference tasks for DL reasoners. Most reasoners support this  
e.g. Pellet and FaCT++

> So you could use SWRL to reason/infer over individuals. From what I  
> can
> tell SWRL will answer questions like: Ronald has a brother called Bob,
> Ronald has a daughter called Alice. is Bob an uncle? SWRL, i  
> believe can
> answer those questions.

I'm not sure that you should view SWRL as a query language.  It is  
true that some query syntaxes look like some SWRL syntaxes.  In fact,  
Martin O'Conner has developed a very nice query plugin that uses the  
SWRL syntax which is used in Protege-OWL.

With regards to the "uncle example", you can express this directly in  
OWL 1.1 without the need for SWRL.  FaCT++ and Pellet already support  
reasoning with these property chain axioms.

Cheers,

Matthew

>
> Protege has a SWRL plugin tab.
>
> I hope the experts in ontologies can provide you with a definitive
> answer here.
>
> regards,
> Will.
>
>
> Ronald Cornet wrote:
>>> Agree?
>>>
>>
>> Yes and no.
>> I agree it works the way you do it.
>> But I like to do it this way:
>> I instantiate "Pizza" (NOT RonaldPizza) and put cheese and tomato  
>> on it.
>> I want to ask the reasoner: what is the 'name' of this pizza, and  
>> get the answer "RonaldPizza".
>> As long as I don't make explicit that this instantiated Pizza only  
>> contains cheese and tomato, it will not be recognized as a  
>> RonaldPizza.
>>
>> Agree?
>> Anyone knows a solution?
>>
>> Ronald
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Ronald,
>>>
>>> I would have thought that you wouldn't need to do this.
>>>
>>> That is, you defined a class of anonymous individuals that
>>> have relationships to other individuals of other classes.
>>> hence any instance of a class then must comply with those
>>> class restrictions in order to be a member.
>>>
>>> so a Class RonaldPizza that has relationship restrictions as  
>>> follows:
>>> \exist hasTopping Cheese \sqcap
>>> \exist hasTopping Tomato \sqcap
>>> \forall hasTopping(Cheese \sqcup Tomato)
>>>
>>> So RonaldPizza is restricted to having Cheese and Tomato and
>>> only those toppings. if an instance or individual is a member
>>> of this class then it must comply with those restrictions.
>>> And it complies with different levels of compliance based on
>>> RoanldPizza been primitive or complete.
>>>
>>> So an instance ronpizza1 of RonaldPizza when placed in your
>>> mouth must only have a taste of tomato and cheese and nothing else.
>>>
>>> Hence no need to close off instances per say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ronald Cornet wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I wonder if we have any Pizza developers ie. the Manchester
>>>>> University gurus out there that cans shed some light on
>>>>>
>>> our queries.
>>>
>>>> I hope so!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure if I fully understand item 2 of your
>>>>>
>>> request, but when
>>>
>>>>> I build my ontology in Protege, weather a class is primitive or
>>>>> complete I use the closure axiom (\forall) across the
>>>>>
>>> properties that
>>>
>>>>> I want to restrict to certain classes. In the Classes GUI
>>>>>
>>> on the left
>>>
>>>>> are a hierarchy of classes and on the right you have property
>>>>> restrictions.
>>>>> right click on a \exists property for example \exists
>>>>>
>>> hasTopping XYX
>>>
>>>>> and then scroll to option for axiom closure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has this answered your question?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, I understand how to do this with classes, as you describe  
>>>> above.
>>>> I do not understand how to do this with instances.
>>>>
>>>> So I instantiate a pizza, put some ingredients on it, and
>>>>
>>> then want to express there aren't any other ingredients.
>>>
>>>> Ronald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> William M. Fitzgerald,
>>> PhD Student,
>>> Telecommunications Software & Systems Group, Waterford
>>> Institute of Technology, Cork Rd.
>>> Waterford.
>>> Office Ph: +353 51 302937
>>> Mobile Ph: +353 87 9527083
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> protege-owl mailing list
>>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>>
>>> Instructions for unsubscribing:
>>> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/ 
>> faq.html#01a.03
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> William M. Fitzgerald,
> PhD Student,
> Telecommunications Software & Systems Group,
> Waterford Institute of Technology,
> Cork Rd.
> Waterford.
> Office Ph: +353 51 302937
> Mobile Ph: +353 87 9527083
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/ 
> faq.html#01a.03




More information about the protege-owl mailing list