Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] properties on classes?
tredmond at stanford.edu
Thu Jan 21 23:31:52 PST 2010
On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Anthony McCallum wrote:
> Does Protege 4.0 support OWL-Full? If not using OWL-Full, then the
> only way to give classes data properties is using punning, correct?
> Based on your explanation, annotation properties are not one really
> what I'm looking for.
Protege 4 doesn't support OWL-Full but punning works.
> Thanks again,
> On 20-Jan-10, at 2:03 AM, protege-owl-request at lists.stanford.edu
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:27:36 -0800
>> From: Thomas Russ <tar at ISI.EDU>
>> To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
>> <protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [protege-owl] properties on classes?
>> Message-ID: <09EC2187-4600-4951-B2E7-8A42337B79CD at isi.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Anthony McCallum wrote:
>>> Thanks for your response. As of now I am still working on a simple
>>> classification which will not rely on reasoning. However, I would
>>> like to ensure that this structure will allow for certain
>>> characteristics to be attached to some of the classes that I have
>>> defined. So perhaps in the future, we would like to be able to
>>> reason and automatically classify individuals based on these
>>> properties. Based on your answer, I understand that this could
>>> potentially be possible if I use OWL-Full. This automatic
>>> classification will not be attempted for quite some time (if ever)
>>> so I believe that OWL-Full should be appropriate (assuming that new
>>> reasoners, etc. will now be using OWL-Full). Please let me know if
>>> I am completely wrong on this.
>> There is some work on OWL-Full reasoners, but I'm not current with
>> what is being done. In general, they are not as widespread because
>> you run into computational issues with OWL-Full. That is why OWL-DL
>> has the restrictions it has -- to make tractable, sound and complete
>> reasoners possible.
>>> On another note, is there any way to reason using annotation
>>> properties, or do these have no logical significance?
>> The classifiers won't do any reasoning with annotation properties,
>> because they do not affect the structural definition of classes.
>> Really only the property restrictions do that, so that is what is
>> considered when performing classification (as well as asserted
>> What sort of reasoning would you want to do with the annotation
>> properties? And what sort of annotations do you wish to use? A bit
>> of an example often makes it easier to come up with modeling
>> Some common examples of annotations would be things like a
>> lastChangedDate, author, etc. which you would want to attach to a
>> particular class. The standard rdfs:comment is also like an
>>> On 13-Jan-10, at 12:08 PM, protege-owl-request at lists.stanford.edu
>>>> Message: 5
>>>> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:14:04 -0800
>>>> From: Thomas Russ <tar at ISI.EDU>
>>>> To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
>>>> <protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re: [protege-owl] properties on classes?
>>>> Message-ID: <B0435737-DC73-4A31-BC52-34C201E8538E at isi.edu>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes;
>>>> On Jan 12, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Anthony McCallum wrote:
>>>>> Is there any practical way to attach properties to classes? Or
>>>>> properties only be used in the context of individuals?
>>>> Short Answer: Use an AnnotationProperty.
>>>> Long Answer: It depends.
>>>> If you want to stay within the OWL-DL level of expressivity, then
>>>> are limited to using Annotation properties for attaching
>>>> to classes themselves. In OWL-DL, ObjectProperty, DatatypeProperty
>>>> and AnnotationProperty are disjoint. And you can't attach Object
>>>> Datatype properties to classes or properties. You also cannot have
>>>> classes or properties be property values, except for certain
>>>> properties like equvialentClass, subClassOf, etc.
>>>> If you are willing to use OWL-Full, then AnnotationProperty is not
>>>> disjoint from ObjectProperty or DatatypeProperty. You can attach
>>>> properties to classes and you can also uses classes as property
>>>> values. Reasoners are not guaranteed to work on OWL-Full
>>>> although in practice the reasoners will generally function while
>>>> ignoring the OWL-Full constructs.
>>> protege-owl mailing list
>>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-owl