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] looking for a good owl pattern

AlexJ alexjudin at
Mon Jan 4 08:23:39 PST 2010

well, what is always confusing me is how to link all of that to practical
use... It looks like very atomizing and to be vety hard to extract new
useful knowledge.
For instance, sticking to my original example (a number of articles linked
to some Knowledge Areas), all I can infer from that ontology is the fact of
belonging of an article to a branch of knowledge and that is all I can. I
probably can also add some more properties like hasReference (Article
hasReference Article) or hasAuthor (Article hasAuthor some Author).
What advantages may I have using DL here?  Linking to your Ducks and Wings,
shall I add more detail like to split the boiling area to water, bubbles
etc, wouldn't it be too much?
That is actually an answer on what kind of knowledge I am looking for... any
not obvious knowledge which can not be easy inferred by user himself. 

And thanks for your answers :)

Thomas Schneider-5 wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2010, at 12:38, AlexJ wrote:
>> sorry for that gap in discussion :) it was a very long turkey coma )))
>> well, it is a big lure to use OWL Full and connect individuals  
>> directly to
>> classes... but as far as I understand I would not be able to use  
>> reasoners
>> ... forgive me for some fool questions but, starting from the very
>> beginning, if I used OWL DL and reasoner, would I have any other  
>> benefits
>> except having my OWL file consistent?
> Yes, you'd get all sorts of other consequences out of it:
> * If you say that every duck is a bird and every bird is an animal,  
> the reasoner would conclude that every duck is an animal. OK, this  
> trivial entailment is already inferred without the use of a reasoner,  
> but how about the next one:
> * If you say that every duck has a wing and every wing is a body part,  
> then the reasoner will conclude that every duck has a body part -- if  
> you ask politely.
> * If you say that every duck has a wing, that every wing contains  
> tissue, and that the concatenation of "hasPart" and "contains" is a  
> subproperty of "contains", then the reasoner will conclude that every  
> duck contains tissue.
> These entailments are still relatively simple. In general, entailments  
> and finding their reasons can become so complex that separate  
> justification services are needed (more pointers on request).
>> And would I still be able to use
>> Protege for maintaining my OWL?
> Sure.
>> Are there any other logical/match tools which might get some  
>> additional
>> knowledge out of my OWL?
> There are. It depends on what kind of inferred knowledge you're after.
> Cheers
> Thomas

View this message in context:
Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at

More information about the protege-owl mailing list