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] Inferring object properties

Thomas Schneider schneidt at cs.man.ac.uk
Mon Jan 4 03:20:36 PST 2010


Hi Thomas R. and Sundar,

I agree that the solution proposed in [1] to express "all men like all  
ice creams" does *not* work in OWL 1 because it makes use of  
"generalised role inclusion axioms", i.e. object subproperty axioms  
involving property chains. However, it *does* work in OWL 2 as shown  
in Lemma 5 in [1], but with one restriction: as soon as you express  
"all men like all ice creams" in the way proposed there, the property  
"likes" will not be simple, i.e., it cannot be used in cardinality  
restrictions, hasSelf restrictions, as well as (inverse)  
functionality, reflexivity, asymmetry and disjoint object property  
axioms. If you can live with this restriction, you can use the  
suggestions in [1] with OWL 2.

Cheers

Thomas S.

[1] Sebastian Rudolph, Markus Krötzsch, Pascal Hitzler. All Elephants  
are Bigger than All Mice. In Proceedings of the 21st International  
Workshop on Description Logics (DL-08). CEUR Workshop Proceedings  
2008. For PDF, see http://korrekt.org/page/Elephants


On 23 Dec 2009, at 00:52, Thomas Russ wrote:

>
> On Dec 22, 2009, at 12:56 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:
>
>> Hi Sundar,
>>
>> yes, you can do this in OWL. A solution is described in the paper  
>> [1]. A summary and link to the PDF can be found at Markus  
>> Krötzsch's homepage [2].
>
> I didn't have time to read the paper in detail, but my quick (and  
> perhaps mistaken) impression is that the paper suggests an addition  
> to the DL underlying OWL that would allow such concept products to  
> be expressed without impairing the algorithmic complexity of the  
> underlying DL.  But it seems to me that the sentence
>
>  "Below, we investigate the use of concept products in SHOIQ, the  
> description logic underlying
> OWL DL. Since SHOIQ does not support generalised role inclusion  
> axioms, concept products can not be simulated by means of other  
> axioms"  [1, Section 5]
>
> indicates that one cannot do that currently in OWL 1.0.  I, for one,  
> can't think of a means of expressing that using OWL axioms -- at  
> least not in the general case.  It may be that there is something in  
> OWL 2.0 that would allow this, but I don't think so.  The closest  
> that I can come requires the use of an explicit enumeration of all  
> the elements of property range class.
>
> OWL's DL doesn't support arbitrary quantification.  You would need a  
> more expressive language for that, either the extension suggested in  
> the paper or a first-order logic representation.
>
> OWL allows you to say that all property values have to come from a  
> certain class, but it does not have a construct to say that the  
> property value must include all of the members of a certain class.   
> So you could say "all men must love an ice cream", but not "all men  
> must love all ice cream".
>
>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> [1] Sebastian Rudolph, Markus Krötzsch, Pascal Hitzler. All  
>> Elephants are Bigger than All Mice. In Proceedings of the 21st  
>> International Workshop on Description Logics (DL-08). CEUR Workshop  
>> Proceedings 2008.
>>
>> [2] http://korrekt.org/page/Elephants
>>
>> On 22 Dec 2009, at 07:33, Saiprasad, Sundar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: news [mailto:news at ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Saiprasad,  
>>> Sundar
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:49 AM
>>> To: protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>>> Subject: Inferring object properties
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Consider the following statement
>>> “All men like icecreams”
>>>
>>> Assume the following  (please excuse the syntax)
>>>
>>> TEST:Man  rdf:type  owl:class
>>> TEST:Food  rdf:type  owl:class
>>> TEST:Icecream  rdf:subclassof  TEST:Food
>>> TEST:likes  rdf:type  owl:ObjectProperty
>>> TEST:likes  rdf:domain   TEST:Man
>>> TEST:likes  rdf:range       TEST:Icecream
>>>
>>> TEST:sundar  rdf:type  TEST:Man
>>> TEST:chocosundae  rdf:type TEST:IceCream
>>>
>>>
>>> Without defining any rules , is it possible to infer the following
>>> TEST:sundar  TEST:likes  TEST:chocosundae
>>>
>>> I looked through all the axioms and other than property chaining ,  
>>> I don’t see
>>> any other axioms that lets inference of property values. Is it  
>>> possible to
>>> express the above in OWL without having any rules?
>>> Basically I want a way by which a property links all instances of  
>>> one class to
>>> all possible instances of another class and I dont want to  
>>> explicitly specify
>>> the triples. It has to be inferred.  If for instance , I add  
>>> TEST:fudge as an
>>> instance of TEST:Icecream , the inference should result in adding  
>>> another
>>> triple , TEST:sundar  TEST:likes  TEST:fudge
>>>
>>> If OWL doesnt support it , is it possible for Protege to help  
>>> create such
>>> links?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sundar
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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--+
>>
>> Skagway (n.)
>> Sudden outbreak of cones on a motorway.
>>
>>                 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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--+

Skagway (n.)
   Sudden outbreak of cones on a motorway.

                   Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20100104/f3fb6104/attachment.sig>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list