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] properties on classes?

Timothy Redmond 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.

-Timothy


>
> Thanks again,
> Anthony
>
> On 20-Jan-10, at 2:03 AM, protege-owl-request at lists.stanford.edu  
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> subClassOf).
>>
>> 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
>> recommendations.
>>
>> 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  
>> annotation.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> On 13-Jan-10, at 12:08 PM, protege-owl-request at lists.stanford.edu
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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;  
>>>> format=flowed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 12, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Anthony McCallum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Is there any practical way to attach properties to classes?  Or  
>>>>> can
>>>>> 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  
>>>> you
>>>> are limited to using Annotation properties for attaching  
>>>> information
>>>> to classes themselves.  In OWL-DL, ObjectProperty, DatatypeProperty
>>>> and AnnotationProperty are disjoint.  And you can't attach Object  
>>>> or
>>>> Datatype properties to classes or properties.  You also cannot have
>>>> classes or properties be property values, except for certain  
>>>> built-in
>>>> 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  
>>>> any
>>>> properties to classes and you can also uses classes as property
>>>> values.  Reasoners are not guaranteed to work on OWL-Full  
>>>> ontologies,
>>>> although in practice the reasoners will generally function while
>>>> ignoring the OWL-Full constructs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> protege-owl mailing list
>>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>>
>>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/
>>> faq.html#01a.03
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20100121/87ae4f02/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list