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] Complement Classes

Thomas Russ tar at ISI.EDU
Fri Jan 8 09:09:27 PST 2010


On Jan 8, 2010, at 2:48 AM, Leyla Jael García Castro wrote:

> Hi Adonis,
>
> Open world reasoning is always hard to grasp for me so I am not  
> completely sure about my answer.
>
> I think in the case you present, ValuePartion patter would help (it  
> is explained in the Pizza Tutorial). If you say
> Class1 --> Union of (Class1_WithName, Class1_NoName)
>     Class1_WithName --> Disjoint with Class1_NoName
>     Class1_NoName --> Disjoint with Class1_WithName
> and you have and individual_1 with type Class1 and with a name, it  
> will be asserted to be also Class1_WithName but not Class1_NoName.
>
> I hope it helps.

This won't solve the original problem.

This formulation still won't infer membership in Class1_NoName.  It  
will just keep the individual as being of type Class1 and not  
deciding which of the two subclasses it belongs to.  In effect it  
won't be known which subclass it belongs to, even though the  
partition says it must belong to one of them.  But you can't force a  
decision as to which because of the rules of open world reasoning.




More information about the protege-owl mailing list