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
Sun Nov 7 05:09:33 PST 2010


Regarding Thomas solution 4:

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.


Wouldn't the ontology be inconsistent as the existential restriction would
imply that John and Frida must have a value (individual) for class Music and
Rock respectively?

Paulo



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/20101107/47d1b60d/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list