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] Query about constructing an ontology based on received OWL-DL fragments on your behalf

Thomas Schneider tschneider at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Tue Feb 7 23:52:14 PST 2012


Hi William and Timothy,

On 07.02.2012, at 18:33, William Fitzgerald wrote:

> On 07/02/12 16:35, Timothy Redmond wrote:
> 
>> In addition, a set of tools that you should be aware of in this context are the OWL modularity
>> tools. These allow you to provide a set of entities (classes and properties say) and extract from an
>> ontology a set of axioms that say everything that is known about those entities based on the larger
>> ontology. Sorry I didn't express that well but I believe there is a Protege plugin that does this.
> 
> Excellent, I'll look around for such plugins.

Timothy's description is an excellent pointer to locality-based modules which are currently supported by the OWL API, but not yet by a Protégé plugin. The most convenient way to extract them is probably via the web service:

http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/modularity/

Enter the ontology contents or URL, a set of entities (class or property names); check whether you want to have all super-/subclasses added to that set; and extract the module. The module is a subset of the ontology's axioms that is sufficient to entail all knowledge the ontology has about the terms specified (including their super-/subclasses if this option was chosen). For the output, you can choose between RDF/XML (to be saved and opened in Protégé) or axioms view (for inspection right in the browser).

Cheers

Thomas

> 
>> 
>> A good approach would be to use a tool to copy the axioms from one ontology to another. Protege 4
>> allows you to move axioms from one ontology to another. But it was not clear to me that you could
>> copy the axioms which is what you really want.
> 
> Hmmm, I'll know more as I play around with Protege 4 and perhaps I can consider workarounds if needs be.
> 
>> 
>>> Having defined a class Fiesta, I changed within Protege the URI from
>>> http://www.car.com/car.owl#Fiesta to http://www.ford.com/ford.owl#Fiesta. I then added to the XML
>>> file generated by protege the following xmlns:ford="http://www.ford.com/ford.owl#".
>> 
>> I think that changing the names like this muddies the waters.
> 
> I agree entirely. However, as a test and rather than creating a file with possibly incorrect RDF/XML syntax, I decided to let the Protege tool generate a sample file that I knew would be correct. I just wanted to inspect how the xml file would look. Based on this file, I was then able to manually create a similar file with which to copy and paste into another ontology. Its was more about teasing out the idea in my own mind. But your right and I certainly do not intend to go down the route of defining and managing raw XML files :-)
> 
>>> What I noticed was, with the locally defined class "Car" in the OWL-XML file used "rdf:ID",
>>> however when simulating the addition of an owl fragment for class "Fiesta" the OWL-XML file used
>>> "rdf:about".
>> 
>> As you might have noticed from my note, OWL/XML is different from RDF/XML. The OWL/XML format does
>> not use rdf:ID and rdf:about.
> 
> Having just installed protege 4, I noticed that I can choose an OWL/XML serialisation over and RDF/XML version, and their shape (for want of a better word) is completely different.
> 
> Thanks, you have given me food for thought.
> Regards,
> Will.
> 
> -- 
> ____________________________________________
> William M. Fitzgerald (BSc (Hons), MSc, PhD)
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow,
> Cork Constraint Computation Centre,
> Department of Computer Science,
> University College Cork,
> Cork,
> Ireland.
> --------------------------------------------
> http://www.williamfitzgerald.net
> ____________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Universität Bremen, FB 03
MZH, Raum 3100
Postfach 330440
28334 Bremen
Germany
+49 421 218-64432
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lydd (n.)
A lid. A lydd differs from a lid in that it has nothing to be a lid of, is at least eighteen months old, and is sold in Ye Olde Antique Shoppes.

Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff



More information about the protege-owl mailing list