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

Thomas Schneider schneidt at
Thu Jan 21 16:37:54 PST 2010

Hi Pooven,

On 21 Jan 2010, at 16:31, Poovendran Moodley wrote:

> 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 
>> > 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.

But even if they are named, what if you later extend your ontology by  
definitions, say A = Person and owns some Animal, then you declare Bob  
to be of type Person and to own Fluffy, who is of type Bird, which is  
a subclass of Animal. You can then infer Bob to be of type A, so  
wouldn't you want to include all pairs of individuals containing Bob  
into the extension of property P?

> 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?

Well, if you say A subClassOf P only B, then the only thing you have  
said is that every individual of A has only P-values in B. But this  
doesn't say that every individual in A has *all* B-instances as P- 
values. In fact, it even allows for any A-instance to have no P-values  
at all. Turning the "subClassOf" into an equivalence or adding the  
same axiom with A and B exchanged doesn't solve this problem.

Or were you thinking of another way to express this?



>> 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:
> 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> 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>  
> wrote:
> From: Poovendran Moodley <moodleyp at>
> Subject: [protege-owl] Enumerated Classes and Special Relationships
> To: "User support for the Protege-OWL editor" <protege-owl at 
> >
> 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
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> PS I hope the bold font isn't a bother, I used it to make my in-line  
> replies more visible.
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at
> Instructions for unsubscribing:

|  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at)  |
|  School of Computer Science  |
|  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161 2756136  |
|  University of Manchester                                            |
|  Oxford Road                                             _///_       |
|  Manchester M13 9PL                                      (o~o)       |

Nacton (n.)
  The 'n' with which cheap advertising copywriters replace the word  
  (as in 'fish 'n' chips', 'mix 'n' match', 'assault 'n' battery'), in
  the mistaken belief that it is in some way chummy or endearing.

                   Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the protege-owl mailing list