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

Adonis Damian adonis at recognos.com
Fri Jan 8 15:36:08 PST 2010


Hi Leyla,

Your solution works for half of the situations. Only the individuals that
have name will be categorized as Class1_WithName but the individuals without
name won’t be categorized as Class1_NoName. The reason is that the inference
engine has a model that says the an individual without name may have a name,
because is not asserted or can’t infer that it doesn’t have name.

So again, how do I need to model these classes so individuals with name will
be categorized as Calss1_WithName and individual without name will be
categorized as Class1_NoName.

 

Thank you,

Adonis

 

 

From: protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu
[mailto:protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Leyla Jael
García Castro
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 2:49 AM
To: protege owl
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Complement Classes

 

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.

 

LG

 

  _____  

From: adonis at recognos.com
To: protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:02:32 -0800
Subject: [protege-owl] Complement Classes

Hi All,

I trying to figure out how complements and open world reasoning work.

Here is a simple example:

I have a 

CalssA

                ClassAWithName – which should be the individuals of ClassA
which have a property “name”

                ClassAWithoutName – which should be the complement of
ClassAWithName – the individuals that don’t have a property “name”

 

How should I model ClassAWithName and ClassAWithoutName so individuals with
property name will be inferred under ClassAWithName and individuals without
property “name” will be inferred under ClassAWithoutName?

 

The problem that I see is that if for an individual i_1, the “name" property
is not asserted then doesn’t mean the it doesn’t have the “name” property.
Meaning that the inference engine doesn’t see that i_1 doesn’t has property
name as provable false but only satisfiable false.

 

Thank you so much for your help,

Adonis

 

  _____  

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/>  now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20100108/740c19d7/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list