Search Mailing List Archives
[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"
University of Colorado
ATLAS PhD Student
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:05:15 -0700
>From: protege-owl-bounces at mailman.stanford.edu (on behalf of Eric Scott <eric.d.scott at att.net>)
>Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Different levels of relations
>To: protege-owl at mailman.stanford.edu
>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:
>>> 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
>> Instructions for unsubscribing:
>protege-owl mailing list
>protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-owl