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 Russ tar at ISI.EDU
Fri Jan 22 12:29:24 PST 2010


On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:39 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:

>
> On 21 Jan 2010, at 15:30, sefunmi Arogundade 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, all you need do is  
>> to relate class A to class B with the property 'isapplicableto'
>
> How do you "relate" a class to another using a property?

I would expect that you could do this using either an  
AnnotationProperty in OWL-DL or an ObjectProperty in OWL-Full.  Now,  
you wouldn't get any automated reasoning from any of the  
classifiers.  You would have to implement your own special purpose  
reasoner to make this annotation at the class level work at the  
instance level.

Or you would need to use a more expressive representation language,  
such as first order logic (FOL).  In FOL you could write a rule  
something like:

    forall(?x,?y): A(?x) ^ B(?y) => isApplicableTo(?x, ?y)

But that would mean you weren't using OWL anymore.

But looking at that particular item, it occurs to me that one could  
also encode this with a SWRL rule and still use OWL.


>
> Thomas
>
>> since a class is a set 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
>> 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
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -+
> |  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at)  
> cs.man.ac.uk  |
> |  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ 
> ~schneidt  |
> |  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161  
> 2756136  |
> |  University of  
> Manchester                                            |
> |  Oxford Road                                             _/// 
> _       |
> |  Manchester M13 9PL                                       
> (o~o)       |
> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)-- 
> OOOo--+
>
> Nacton (n.)
>  The 'n' with which cheap advertising copywriters replace the word  
> 'and'
>  (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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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




More information about the protege-owl mailing list