Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Get inferred property values
thusitha at cs.auckland.ac.nz
Sun Jan 6 20:55:10 PST 2008
"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" -
I wonder if ongoing work such as:
1. f-SWRL: A Fuzzy Extension of SWRL -
2. Uncertainty and the Semantic Web -
will be of any help? In the 1st ref. I don't quite understand the
logic, but the
examples in Section 4 certainly look like something I'd like to
consider at some
stage for my work.
Quoting Thomas Russ <tar at ISI.EDU>:
> 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:
More information about the protege-owl