Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Get inferred property values
m59sapi at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 4 12:47:04 PST 2008
Sorry for my long holiday break, coming back to my original questions, the
ontology consists of disease which hasSyndromes, Syndrome hasSymptoms, it is
easy to construct a demo, for example, to show people how to infer the
Syndrome based on instances of hasSymptoms , but beyond that I am struggling
with some very basic issues to make it a useful tool for real diagnosis:
1. How to infer from an instance-based ontology rather than a class-based
ontology: Judging from Thomas's response it seems that you must put
everything into the class as N&S conditions, but in my case, the user would
be expected to pick the correct instances of symptoms and then clicking a
button would do the reasoning to get the possible syndromes, he would then
decide what syndrome this should be. His experience would then be used for
other doctors to infer as well, but it seems that we must convert this to
classes N&S conditions before this exp can be used.
2. DL logic is very rigid: This means I cannot model in an instance-based
ontology saying tha Bronchitis Syndrome A hasSymtoms Cough AND (green phelgm
OR yellow phelgm); then Synd B hasSymtoms Cough AND (no phelgm or white
phelgm), you must resort to those N&S conditions again to properly define
3. There is no tool to transfer from a relational DB or spreadsheet to class
based ontology; played with Datamaster but very limited in its flexibility
in mapping the import from which column to which class
This is the third time I started from scratch developing the same ontology,
so I must get it right this time; the first 2 times failed as not enough
time was spent on how to get the information out or how to use the ontology
(reasoning requirements); protege seems to be very good in putting in the
information but not easy to get it out. Its a new field to me and I am not
sure if I miss anything here or there is a better tool out there, or would
putting the conditions into the rules engines helps (e.g. SWRL) or I have to
learn the OWL API to do what I want??
Thomas Russ wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007, at 7:06 AM, m. sapi wrote:
>> I am quite puzzled by all these reasoning stuff offered by Protege
>> OWL. I am
>> using the 3.4 beta now, but this question probably apply to
>> previous versions as
>> First (1)what is this "Get inferred property values" when you right
>> click an
>> individual? it seems just repeating what is shown on the form on
>> the right.
>> (2) What I understand is that With class-based reasoning, I can
>> have a class and
>> after setting its necessary and sufficient conditions, I can right
>> click the
>> class then select "Get inferred subclass" or "get inferred
>> alternatively I can do instance-based reasoning by selecting
>> "compute individual
>> belonging to class" or right click the individual then select
>> "compute types",
>> but none of these seems to be what I want. As in order to do the
>> reasoning in
>> the above cases, there must be a CLASS which I have defined all the
>> this means I need to use "convert individual to class" function to
>> convert my
>> instance to a class, then drag all the conditions under the
>> "necessary" to the
>> "sufficient" conditions, the compute types ... Is there a simpler
>> (without convert all indiv to class) where I can just find all
>> other classes
>> which had the same properties like the individual in question.
> Well, unless your classes have definitions, there isn't really
> anything for the reasoning system to work with.
> You will need to define, using necessary and sufficient (N&S)
> conditions, what is required to belong to a class. Actually, all you
> really need are sufficient conditions, but there isn't any direct way
> to enter those in the Protege interface. The closest method is to
> create fully defined (possibly anonymous?) subclasses with N&S
> conditions, so that satisfaction of any subclass will enable
> recognition of class membership.
> I'm not quite sure what the structure of your ontology is. Assuming
> that the classes you care about have appropriate definitions, then
> you won't need the "convert individual to class" function. That
> would only be necessary if you had defined your classes as instances
> in the first place, and now you realize that you really need them to
> be classes.
> You will have to make sure that the restrictions in the class
> definitions are in the N&S position in order for recognition to take
> place. But the "compute individuals belonging to class" or "compute
> types" seems exactly like the reasoning that you would want for a
> particular case. They will use the sufficient conditions on the
> class definition to identify those individuals that meet the criteria
> for the class. This may mean that you will need to move restrictions
> which are only under necessary conditions under N&S, though. There
> isn't really any way around that, since necessary conditions do not
> allow inference about membership. They only tell you what must be
> true of a particular individual.
> For example, it could be that you define having the property "weight"
> is a necessary condition for a person. But there are lots of other
> things, like cows, automobiles, bricks, etc. that also have a
> "weight" property, so clearly that is not a sufficient condition for
> being a person.
>> I am doing a medical diagnosis system, as I entered a new disease
>> case with
>> certain symptoms, I want to quickly identify what type of disease
>> class this
>> might possible belongs to, hopefully it might match some of the
>> cases I have
>> already entered, but I do not want to spend all the time converting
>> all the
>> previous diseases cases (individuals) to classes. Sorry if the
>> question is not
>> very clear.
> I think that in particular for medical diagnosis, having multiple
> sufficient classes which are then made subclasses of the disease/
> diagnosis in question would be most useful. That would then let you
> define at a fairly fine-grained level what the minimum required set
> of symptoms and test values are needed to fulfill the diagnosis.
> This strikes me as better than a pure necessary & sufficient case,
> since you may easily have situations where not ALL symptoms of a
> particular disease are present.
> Of course, if you try to make this a real system, rather than just
> for demonstration, you will quickly run into the limitations of a
> purely logic-based approach, namely the inability to handle
> uncertainty in the reasoning. All of the reasoning support in OWL is
> strict in nature, so you can't have shades of meaning or uncertainty.
>> M Sapi.
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Get-inferred-property-values-tp14347025p14624642.html
Sent from the Protege - OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the protege-owl