Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Modelling questions: Synonyms, instances
tar at ISI.EDU
Wed Oct 8 09:21:20 PDT 2008
Rearranging the original message a bit.
On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:24 AM, Damian Nowak wrote:
> So what I wanted to to is to bind it to the set of all instances of a
> certain class, this is possible using protege (as shown in the
> below), but as I said, this approach would not consider instances I
> add in the
Well, there was no screen shot, but it seems to me that "the set of
all instance of a certain class" is the same as "a certain class",
So, the real question is whether you can encode the restriction that
you want to have using the OWL language constructs or not.
> What we have is a
> relationship between objects, functions, machines and operations. A
> function is
> defined to consist of an object and an operation. A machine can
> provide such
> function. So, what I want to assert is: Machine1234 can provide
> function4567 for
> all canisters, and I'd like to state that without binding it to
> instances of canisters, but to classes of canisters (but obviously
> that would be
It will not necessarily be OWL-Full. That depends on whether you can
state the restriction using the OWL restrictions language.
If function4567 is an individual:
Machine1234 => performFunction has function4567
If function4567 is a class:
Machine1234 => performFunction someValuesFrom function4567
Machine1234 => performFunction allValuesFrom function4567
performFunction atleast 1
depending on whether this is exclusive or not. There are ways of
making the individual case be exclusive as well.
The restriction that this function applies to all canisters could be
handled by an appropriate formulation of the function class.
If you find that this isn't possible, you might need to consider other
choices for the modeling and reasoning, such as adding SWRL to your
OWL model, or perhaps choosing a first order logic reasoning system
instead of a description logic.
More information about the protege-owl