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

Bert Van Nuffelen bvn at missioncriticalit.com
Fri Apr 6 08:10:21 PDT 2007


Timothy Redmond wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Thomas Russ wrote:
>
>   
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:59 AM, william fitzgerald wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Method 2:
>>>
>>> I think dealing with individuals is more a rules engine thing than
>>> a DL
>>> reasoner area.
>>>       
>> That depends on the particular DL reasoner.
>>
>> Other DL languages and reasoners have had mechanisms that are quite
>> capable of reasoning using combinations of closed world reasoning,
>> limited closed world reasoning, and even cardinality restrictions
>> asserted directly about instances.
>>     
>
> This thread has been going on for some time so I may be missing some  
> context.  But it seems to me that you are making a link between  
> reasoning about individuals and closed world reasoning.  I think that  
> these are two entirely different issues.
>
> Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler and many others have put a tremendous  
> amount of work into finding a reasonable computable description  
> logic.  There results include algorithms for deciding questions about  
> individuals as well as classes.  Pellet and Fact use the algorithms  
> that they have found so these algorithms are able to do "full OWL  
> inference" for individuals.  (I am always tempted to use the word  
> "complete" here but I don't know if this is one of its technical  
> meanings).
>
> Now when you start  talking about closed world reasoning, you are  
> talking about a different logic than OWL DL (and even than OWL  
> 1.1).   There are some suggestions flying around about how OWL can be  
> extended to handle the closed world.  Two that I know of are  
> autoepistemic logics and default logics.  There are also  
> implementations for these. I believe pellet has an implementation of  
> an autoepistemic logic and there was a paper recently about an  
> implementation for a default logic.
>   
A better integration with CWA is ID-logic (as it has been called in the 
early 2000) now called FO(ID).
This is a logic with is FOL extended with inductive definitions 
originally defined by Marc Denecker, KULeuven.
If you look for a nice semantical integration this logic might be the 
one you are looking for.

Bert






More information about the protege-owl mailing list