Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Modelling questions: Synonyms, instances
james at howison.name
Tue Oct 7 08:46:46 PDT 2008
On 7 Oct 2008, at 7:15 AM, Damian Nowak wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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
> first of all: sorry for the late reply
> (I was pretty busy the last couple of days)
> and thanks a lot for the extensive replies!
> If I understand correctly, James Howison's proposed solution entails
> that I would have to bind the restriction to the property.
> Since there are many
> different specializations of machines which can handle very
> different kinds of objects, I'd have to introduce one property for
> machine/object combination.
Not quite that bad, I think. The property could have domain :Machine
and range :YourObject, then it would 'work' for all sub-classes of
those things ... I say 'work' but I'm not quite sure what you are
trying to do.
I'm not sure. Have you had a chance to think about what you want to
assert, what you want to infer and what you want to know, after the
data process? (Also how you will know it; finding an inconsistency,
querying for particular types of inferred statements?) I think that
would help us help more.
For example, do you want to query a db to find a canister for a
particular machine? Or to find an appropriate machine for a
particular canister? Or perhaps you are shipping canisters and you
want to match supply with demand for a particular set of machines?
>> 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
>> of canisters. This isn't the same as saying it handles ALL
>> 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
> I have to admit, I have no idea how to implement such statement in
> But even if, wouldn't I still have to assert canisters to the
> property manually?
> I made a screenshot of my "problem". This is the function I am
> looking for, but
> kind of synchronized. (It's partially in german, I hope it is
> though ;) )
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-owl