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

Sarah E. Vieweg Sarah.Vieweg at Colorado.EDU
Fri Nov 5 13:28:21 PDT 2010

I have another idea that may help....use roles.

John has_role "MusicLikerRole"

Frida has_role "RockLikerRole"



Sarah Vieweg
University of Colorado 
ATLAS PhD Student

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:05:15 -0700
>From: protege-owl-bounces at (on behalf of Eric Scott <eric.d.scott at>)
>Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Different levels of relations  
>To: protege-owl at
>If I may ask, what would be the advantage of subclassing beyond 'Musical 
>Genre', with instances as 'jazz', 'rock', etc. and properties 
>characterizing rhythm, associated pieces, demographics, labels, and so 
>on?  It seems to me that you'd be letting yourself in for all kinds of 
>fuzzy-boundary issues if you got carried away with a taxonomy.
>Newbie here, so I'm happy to be set straight.
>On 11/05/2010 11:29 AM, Thomas Russ wrote:
>> 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
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: 
>protege-owl mailing list
>protege-owl at
>Instructions for unsubscribing:

More information about the protege-owl mailing list