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] does protege allow this kind of check consistency?

Sara Paiva sara.paiva at gmail.com
Thu Apr 29 09:00:21 PDT 2010


I am working on semantic validation of queries (imagine Google searches:
"books which title is Da Vinci Code and which title is Digital Fortress). If
they don´t make sense why perform them? They will always return empty
results.

Right know i am checking if owl has a way to check this form me through
unstatisfiable classes.

but from you help i am getting to the conclusion that is not possible.



On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Thomas Schneider <schneidt at cs.man.ac.uk>wrote:

>
> On 29 Apr 2010, at 16:45, sop wrote:
>
>
>> Oh i get you point.
>>
>> But i want to go a little further than that and that´s what i don´t know
>> the
>> reasoner can do.
>>
>> Let me clarify for you.
>>
>> Suppose i want to transform a query into a owl class description just to
>> see
>> if the query can be satisfied (not obtain results).
>>
>> now suppose restriction 1 is "number of pages is 1" and the other
>> restriction is "number of pages is 2". this query makes no sense as no
>> book
>> can have 1 page and, at the same time, 2 pages. Right?
>>
>
> Well, for us as humans it doesn't make sense to claim that a book has
> exactly one and exactly two pages at the same time -- because we have the
> background knowledge that no book can have two different numbers of pages.
> If you're writing an ontology, you need to assert that information as
> Timothy or I have suggested. The reasoner cannot make any general-world
> inferences from the names of your properties because it focusses on the
> logical structure of the ontology.
>
> I still don't know which queries you mean and how you want to translate
> them into class descriptions.
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>> are you understanding me? do you think this can be done?
>>
>> plus: is there the notion of "and" and "or" because the same two
>> restrictions above with "or" already made sense.......
>>
>> hope I am not making this confusing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/does-protege-allow-this-kind-of-check-consistency-tp2075649p2075726.html
>> Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk  |
> |  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt  |
> |  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161 2756136  |
> |  University of Manchester                                            |
> |  Oxford Road                                             _///_       |
> |  Manchester M13 9PL                                      (o~o)       |
> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
>
> Sconser (n.)
>  A person who looks around them when talking to you, to see if there's
>  anyone more interesting about.
>
>                  Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20100429/9496e405/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list