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] protege-owl Digest, Vol 22, Issue 48

Martin O'Connor martin.oconnor at stanford.edu
Tue May 20 15:18:15 PDT 2008


This looks reasonable - with the usual caveats about OWL's open world 
assumption: http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SWRLLanguageFAQ#nid9KT.

Martin

Sisi Xuanyuan wrote:

>
> Thanks very much to Russ.
>
> I checked the rule again. There is only one single individual attached 
> to each individual of "Class_1" and "Class_2". That is because I set 
> the property "hasProperty" to be functional.
>
> And maybe my naming system has problem. I named one class as 
> "Property", and just want to say "Class_1" and "Class_2' can associate 
> with "Property" through the property "hasProperty". So maybe the 
> following is clearer:
>
> Class_1(?c1) and Class_2(?c2) and differentFrom(?c1, ?c2) and 
> Part(?p1) and Part(?p2) and hasPart(?c1, ?p1)  and hasPart(?c2, ?p2) 
> and sameAs(?p1, ?p2) --> theExclusiveViolated(?c1, ?c2)
>
> Then I think this rule doesn't seem like a OWl-Full any more.
>
> Looking forward to more advises. Thanks.
>
> Cecilia
>
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>     Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 08:57:08 -0700
>     From: Thomas Russ <tar at ISI.EDU <mailto:tar at ISI.EDU>>
>     Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Problem of "sameAs" working with
>            individuals
>     To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
>            <protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>     <mailto:protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>>
>     Message-ID: <D3AB43CE-4BF7-45DE-B28A-46CD56D97E8F at isi.edu
>     <mailto:D3AB43CE-4BF7-45DE-B28A-46CD56D97E8F at isi.edu>>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP; format=flowed;
>            delsp=yes
>
>
>     >
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > I have a problem of "sameAs" when I use it to determining whether
>     > two individuals are same. The rule is:
>     >
>     > Class_1(?c1)  ? Class_2(?c2)  ? differentFrom(?c1, ?c2)
>     > ? Property(?p1)  ? Property(?p2)  ? hasProperty(?
>     > c1, ?p1)  ? hasProperty(?c2, ?p2)  ? sameAs(?p1, ?p2)
>     > ? theExclusiveViolated(?c1, ?c2)
>     >
>     > The background is: c1 is an individual of Class_1, c2 is an
>     > individual of Class_2, and they are different; c1 has property p1,
>     > c2 has property p2, and both p1 and p2 are individuals of Property;
>     > I want to check if p1 is same as p2, then the new property
>     > theExclusiveViolated will be asserted.
>
>     This seems to me to be a pretty unusual constraint.  Is it really true
>     in your domain that each property can only be attached to a SINGLE
>     individual of the classes 1 and 2?  In that case, it would seem that
>     you would also run into problems because this rule itself can result
>     in more than one individual having "theExclusiveViolated" property
>     asserted about it.
>
>     You also realize that by treating properties as individuals (by using
>     the sameAs property on property individuals, that you have an OWL-Full
>     ontology.  It may be the case that the SWRL reasoner doesn't handle
>     classes and properties as individuals.  Perhaps Martin O'Connor can
>     comment.
>
>
>     > I have already added the list of (p1, p2) and (c1, c2) to an
>     > allDifferents set. The Jess result shows no property is asserted. If
>     > I take out the "sameAs(?p1, ?p2)" restriction, this rule works. But
>     > it is not what I want, so I must add the "sameAs" restriction.
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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