Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Modelling questions: Synonyms, instances
damian.nowak at empolis.com
Thu Oct 9 00:19:44 PDT 2008
> 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
> > screenshot
> > below), but as I said, this approach would not consider instances I
> > add in the
> > future.
> Well, there was no screen shot, but it seems to me that "the set of
Here it is again:
> all instance of a certain class" is the same as "a certain class",
You are right.
> > 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
> > concrete
> > instances of canisters, but to classes of canisters (but obviously
> > that would be
> > OWL-Full)
> It will not necessarily be OWL-Full. That depends on whether you can
> state the restriction using the OWL restrictions language.
> The restriction that this function applies to all canisters could be
> handled by an appropriate formulation of the function class.
The thing is: What we are doing now works exactly as we need it (adding the
instances manually). The only problem is the synchronization.
If we cannot find
a better way of modeling I suppose we will have to write a script or something
which adds all instances of a certain class to a property.
Further, there are many different kinds of objects which can be handled by
functions. So not only canisters but many more - I don't think we can restrict
the function class in a useful manner.
More information about the protege-owl