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] Modelling questions: Synonyms, instances

Thomas Russ tar at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 2 11:23:05 PDT 2008


Skipping parts that James and Kaarel already answered.

On Sep 29, 2008, at 8:53 AM, <Damian.Nowak at empolis.com> <Damian.Nowak at empolis.com 
 > wrote:
>
> We will massively use defined concepts (defined via restrictions) -  
> this
> was only an example. But as I understand it, I cannot avoid primitive
> concepts completely.

True.  That is mainly because it is impractical to provide structured  
definitions for everything in your domain.  Often there are aspects  
that either "just are" or that for various reasons you don't really  
need or expect the system to reason about.  So it is necessary or more  
convenient to use primitive concepts for those and agree to tell the  
system about membership in the primitive class (or one if its  
subclasses).

>
> Correct (simplified) example:
> A machine can handle all modeled canisters. So, I do have a object
> property called "canHandle" (domain: machines, range: objects) for
> example. I create an instance: Machine1234, and want to say that it  
> can
> handle ALL canisters. I can use the "All asserted instances"
> functionality in protege, but of course this won't regard canisters I
> add tomorrow or at any later point of time.
> So, how can I solve that problem?

Well, aside from Jame Howison's note that you might not have to do  
anything, which would be my first choice, you can also use the ability  
to create arbitrary anonymous class definitions whenever you need  
them.  I would choose a slightly simpler formulation than Kaarel  
Kaljurand's, though:

   Machine1234 type (AllValuesFrom canHandle Canister)

which says that Machine1234 belongs to the class of things that can  
handle only canisters, but without any other restrictions on the types  
of canisters.  This isn't the same as saying it handles ALL canisters,  
but rather that it handles ONLY canisters.  This is a bit different  
semantically from Kaarel's second solution which says that all  
canisters can be handled by Machine1234, but without saying anything  
about what else Machine1234 could do in addition to handling cannisters.





More information about the protege-owl mailing list