Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Modeling change, source, uncertainty, contradiction?
tar at ISI.EDU
Fri Aug 24 12:36:56 PDT 2007
On Aug 23, 2007, at 11:11 PM, Johann Petrak wrote:
> Getting back to OWL I wonder if it would be possible to
> have the cake and eat it: would it be possible to
> introduce triples that give additional information
> about properties (making a property the domain of another
> property) which can also be searched,
You could certainly do this. This will move your ontology into OWL-
Full, which means that the entire ontology cannot be handled by the
standard OWL-DL reasoners like Pellet, Fact++ or Racer.
It's also not clear that it would accomplish what you want.
You need to distinguish meta-properties or annotations that provide
additional information about a Property and second-order statements
that provide additional information about a Triple. Annotating
properties can be done inside OWL. Annotating triples can't. As an
example of the difference, consider:
age created-by Bill-Smith
age created-on Feb-18-2007
Elizabeth-Tailor age 35
[Elizabeth-Tailor age 35] certainty 0.01
[Elizabeth-Tailor age 35] source Tailor's-Publicist
It is the annotations of the triples that will be difficult to
achieve, unless you introduce reified terms for them.
> but with the protege-owl framework ignoring
> those triples for reasoning (e.g. when computing
> a transitive closure)?
Well, making them annotation properties should accomplish this.
Also, a number of the OWL-DL reasoners will, in fact, take OWL-Full
input and just ignore the parts that are outside of OWL-DL.
> I am aware that his would again
> also provide limited functionality but in my case it
> probably would be sufficient.
More information about the protege-owl