Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Complement Classes
Leyla Jael García Castro
lj_garciac at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 8 09:20:21 PST 2010
Thanks a lot for your explanation, this one and the one you replied to Adonis. Open world is always tricky for me but these discussions are so useful.
> From: tar at ISI.EDU
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:09:27 -0800
> To: protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Complement Classes
> 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.
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-owl