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] Different levels of relations

Paulo Urbano pub at di.fc.ul.pt
Fri Nov 5 12:34:30 PDT 2010


Thanks



Paulo Urbano

2010/11/5 Thomas Russ <tar at isi.edu>

>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Paulo Urbano wrote:
>
>  Hi
>>
>> I have a little modeling problem.
>>
>> Imagine that I want to model musical tastes of individuals using OWL 2.
>>
>> Let's say I want to list the muscial tastes of different people at
>> different generalization levels: for example,
>>
>> John likes Music
>> Frida likes Rock
>> Albert likes Progressive-Rock (sub-category of Rock)
>> Linda likes free-jazz (sub-category of Jazz).
>>
>>
>> How can I model this?
>>
>> 1) musical categories would be classes, but then how can I have a property
>> with class Person as domain (likes) whose value is a class and not an
>> individuals of a class? A kind of meta range...
>>
>
> Well, actually putting classes into the property values would move you out
> of OWL 2 DL and into OWL 2 Full.  And the Protege interface doesn't really
> support that.  There is punning (as you note in item #2).
>
>
>  2. Musical categories would be classes, each would have only one
>> individual. I could use puning to maintain the same names for classes and
>> for the respective individuals. So I would have to say that the class
>> Free-Jazz,  would have only one individual Free-jazz and the class Music
>> only one individual Music and the same for Rock (super-class of
>> Progressive-Rock), etc.
>>
>
> Yes, you could do this.  In effect you would use a canonical individual for
> each of the classes and then be able to do some reasoning about the
> hierarchy based on how they classify.
>
>  3. Any other way?
>>
>
> 3.  Instead of direct punning, you could create proxy individuals for the
> classes, where you effectively move the non OWL-DL parts a bit further away
> from your restrictions.  This will allow certain reasoners to work with the
> proxy individuals while ignoring the connection to the classes.  It does
> make the use of the individuals a bit more difficult.
>
> 4.  You could dispense with the individuals entirely and work just with the
> descriptions and the axioms describing the restrictions.  So, for example
> you could say
>
>   John type (some likes Music)
>   Frida type (some likes Rock)
>
> etc.  You could then use things like DL query to find individuals that
> satisfy the restrictions that you want.  This can be a bit cumbersome in
> that getting access to the details of the restrictions isn't as easy as
> dealing directly with individuals and property values, but it should be
> something you could reasonably encapsulate.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101105/7f1c35c3/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list