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] Enumerated Classes and Special Relationships

Poovendran Moodley moodleyp at cs.ukzn.ac.za
Thu Jan 21 08:31:53 PST 2010


*Hi there,

Thank you for your response. Please see in-line for my reply... and as
always, I'm am very grateful for the assistance.*


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Thomas Schneider <schneidt at cs.man.ac.uk>wrote:
> Hi Pooven,
>
> If you really want to say *all* individuals in A are in relation P with
> *all* individuals from B, then it's not enough to say this explicitly only
> for all individuals asserted to be instances of A or B. You'd want this for
> inferred individuals as well, I suppose.
>

*It's unlikely that an Individual will be inferred to belong to either class
A or B. These classes are, for all intents and purposes, primitive classes,
it's just that I've made them enumerated classes because I was curious to
see how my hierarchy would look; they don't form domains or ranges for any
of the object properties and are subclasses of the classes that are
specified in the domains and ranges.

I'm sorry Dr. Schneider, I'm not sure why the explicit relationship won't be
enough? I would have expect that even inferred Individuals would have
inferred upon them, any additional relationships I define in the equivalence
class - I mean, since I'm using the value keyword and not some. Could you
perhaps explain this a bit more?*


>
> What you can do is try the solution described in [1], which uses OWL 2
> features that are not in OWL 1.
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas
>
> [1] Sebastian Rudolph, Markus Krötzsch, Pascal Hitzler. All Elephants are
> Bigger than All Mice. In Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on
> Description Logics (DL-08). CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2008. PDF:
> http://korrekt.org/page/Elephants


*Thank you for the link! It sounds very interesting :) I'll be sure to have
a look at it soon.*

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:30 PM, sefunmi Arogundade <sheflaw at yahoo.com>wrote:

>  i f I can get you right, you mean you want all individual of class A to be
> related to all individual of class B,


*Yes, so if A is the set {a1, a2, a3} and B is the set {b1, b2} then I'd
like the following properties to exist:

a1 isAppliableTo b1
a1 isAppliableTo b2
a2 isAppliableTo b1
a2 isAppliableTo b2
a3 isAppliableTo b1
a3 isAppliableTo b2*


> all you need do is to relate class A to class B with the property
> 'isapplicableto' since a class is a set


*As Dr. Schneider posted, I don't know how to relate classes together. As
far as I'm aware, object properties relate Individuals together and data
properties relate Individuals with data values.*


> containing individuals the se property will be used for all the individuals
> in class A and B. Then if yu need to make a change just change the property
> name and it changes for all the individuals of the two classes. I hope this
> solves your problem.
> Sefunmi
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 1/21/10, Poovendran Moodley <moodleyp at cs.ukzn.ac.za>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Poovendran Moodley <moodleyp at cs.ukzn.ac.za>
> Subject: [protege-owl] Enumerated Classes and Special Relationships
> To: "User support for the Protege-OWL editor" <
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>
> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 9:56 AM
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have two enumerated class with individuals that I'd like to have a binary
> relationship with each other. So let's suppose I have class *A* and *B*,
> then I'd like all elements of class *A* to be related to every element in
> class *B* using the object property *isAppliableTo*.
>
> I know that I could infer that every individual in class A has the property
> by using the equivalence class:
> isAppliableTo value *individualB_1*
> where *individualB_1* is some individual from class *B*; if I repeat the
> relationship above for every individual in *B* then each individual in A
> will have the property inferred to it.
>
> It's a bit tedious, and if a change occurs, I'd have to make changes in two
> places. So I was hoping there's an easier way to do this? Or a better
> approach?
> Thank you for your time and consideration.
>
> Kind regards
> Pooven
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu<http://mc/compose?to=protege-owl@lists.stanford.edu>
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>
> PS I hope the bold font isn't a bother, I used it to make my in-line
replies more visible.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20100121/aefd9bff/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list