Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] looking for a good owl pattern
schneidt at cs.man.ac.uk
Wed Jan 6 10:50:36 PST 2010
On 4 Jan 2010, at 16:23, AlexJ wrote:
> well, what is always confusing me is how to link all of that to
> 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
> 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
> shall I add more detail like to split the boiling area to water,
> etc, wouldn't it be too much?
Well, your original example consists of a class hierarchy together
with class/property assertions for individuals. Reasoning over such a
structure is quite easy (almost boringly so) and doesn't need full-
fledged OWL reasoners. In fact, this structure only uses some of OWL's
expressivity. As soon as you bring in more complex axioms (and my duck-
bird-etc example was only the beginning), ... reasoning becomes more
complex. Whether you need more complex axioms depends on what you want
to express. If a class hierarchy suffices, that's fine.
> 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
>>> ... forgive me for some fool questions but, starting from the very
>>> beginning, if I used OWL DL and reasoner, would I have any other
>>> 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
>> 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,
>> 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?
>>> Are there any other logical/match tools which might get some
>>> knowledge out of my OWL?
>> There are. It depends on what kind of inferred knowledge you're
> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/looking-for-a-good-owl-pattern-tp786837p998362.html
> Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> 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) |
A very thick and heavy drift of snow balanced precariously on the
edge of a door porch awaiting for what it judges to be the correct
moment to fall.
From the ancient Greek legend 'The Treewofe of Damocles'.
Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the protege-owl