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

Saiprasad, Sundar Sundar_Saiprasad at intuit.com
Mon Jan 4 03:24:18 PST 2010


Hi Thomas S

I have a solution for this problem. I had already shared it but will share it again.

I got this solution from the W3c OWL mailing list. I tried the following and it worked well


    TEST:FoodGroup rdf:type owl:Class .
    TEST:hasMember rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
    TEST:memberOf rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ; owl:inverseOf TEST:hasMember .
    TEST:likes owl:propertyChainAxiom ( TEST:likes TEST:hasMember ) .

    TEST:iceCreams rdf:type TEST:FoodGroup .
    TEST:Man rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty TEST:likes ; owl:hasValue TEST:iceCreams ] .
    TEST:IceCream rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty TEST:memberOf ; owl:hasValue TEST:iceCreams ] .

This creates a new class, FoodGroup, the instances of which are groupings of foods, with the inverse properties hasMember and memberOf linking the group to the food and vice-versa.  Every Man is then asserted to like the iceCreams group and every IceCream is asserted to be a member of iceCreams.  The property chain axiom then infers that a Man who likes a food group also likes all the foods in that group.

The use of a property chain puts this in OWL 2.  However, you could remove the property chain axiom and add the following, instead:

    TEST:hasMember rdfs:subPropertyOf TEST:likes .
    TEST:likes rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty .

This is semantically less clean, as it suggests that a food group "likes" its member foods, but it allows the limited capabilities of transitivity in OWL 1 to do the job of the property chain in the first version.

Both versions end up concluding some slightly odd things due to the domain and range axioms you listed for the "likes" property, so you may want to remove those or otherwise fiddle with the modeling, if the conclusions cause problems in your application.

My original assertions were :
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


Thanks
Sundar




-----Original Message-----
From: protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Schneider
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 4:51 PM
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Inferring object properties

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







More information about the protege-owl mailing list