CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

Dr. Kofi Nyamekye

Matthew:

 

I am following your PROGETEOWLTUTORIAL to build the Pizza example. On Page 86 (Exercise 55), you have the following statements about the reasoner.

 

Exercise 55: Use the reasoner to classify the ontology (Page 86)

 

1. Press the `Classify...' button in the Reasoner toolbar. After a short time the reasoner will have computed the inferred class hierarchy, and the inferred class hierarchy pane will pop open.

 

The inferred class hierarchy should resemble the picture shown in Figure 6.4. As can be seen, MargheritaPizza and SohoPizza have been classi_ed as subclasses of VegetarianPizza. AmericanaPizza and AmericanHotPizza have been classied as NonVegetarianPizza. Things seemed to have worked.

 

 

I can’t very those statements from the Set Theory. Am I missing something here?

 

Best Regards,

 

Kofi


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

Rafael Gonçalves
Kofi,

Perhaps you’re missing some knowledge of the underlying description logics and/or set theory. It’s unclear what you’re trying to achieve...

Cheers,
Rafael


P.S. Please do not use capitalize email subjects. And there is no need to send the same email more than once under a different subject...


On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:15, Dr. Kofi Nyamekye <[hidden email]> wrote:

Matthew:
 
I am following your PROGETEOWLTUTORIAL to build the Pizza example. On Page 86 (Exercise 55), you have the following statements about the reasoner. 
 
Exercise 55: Use the reasoner to classify the ontology (Page 86)
 
1. Press the `Classify...' button in the Reasoner toolbar. After a short time the reasoner will have computed the inferred class hierarchy, and the inferred class hierarchy pane will pop open.
 
The inferred class hierarchy should resemble the picture shown in Figure 6.4. As can be seen, MargheritaPizza and SohoPizza have been classi_ed as subclasses of VegetarianPizza. AmericanaPizza and AmericanHotPizza have been classied as NonVegetarianPizza. Things seemed to have worked.
 
<image003.png>
 
I can’t very those statements from the Set Theory. Am I missing something here? 
 
Best Regards,
 
Kofi 
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

Dr. Kofi Nyamekye

Rafael:

 

The purpose of doing the Pizza example is to get me up to speed on Protégé since I stopped using it about two years ago – to work on some other research activity. I have some new research program which I need to use an ontology, which I believe Protégé will do it.

 

From the basic mathematical set theory, if we define a set e.g., A  consisting of whole numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and a set B consisting of whole numbers 2,3, 4. Then the compliment of set B will be 1,5,7.

 

In the example, the NonVegetarianPizza is the compliment of VegetarianPizza. The VegetarianPizza has already been defined in the example, but using the set theory, I just can’t validate the statements on Page 86. I just want to ensure that the statements are in agreement with my thinking from the set theory.  That was the rationale behind my question.  By the way, prior to that page, I have been successful in validating everything in the tutorial.

 

Best Regards,

 

Kofi

 

From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rafael Gonçalves
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:41 PM
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [protege-user] CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

 

Kofi,

 

Perhaps you’re missing some knowledge of the underlying description logics and/or set theory. It’s unclear what you’re trying to achieve...

 

Cheers,

Rafael

 

 

P.S. Please do not use capitalize email subjects. And there is no need to send the same email more than once under a different subject...

 

 

On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:15, Dr. Kofi Nyamekye <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Matthew:

 

I am following your PROGETEOWLTUTORIAL to build the Pizza example. On Page 86 (Exercise 55), you have the following statements about the reasoner. 

 

Exercise 55: Use the reasoner to classify the ontology (Page 86)

 

1. Press the `Classify...' button in the Reasoner toolbar. After a short time the reasoner will have computed the inferred class hierarchy, and the inferred class hierarchy pane will pop open.

 

The inferred class hierarchy should resemble the picture shown in Figure 6.4. As can be seen, MargheritaPizza and SohoPizza have been classi_ed as subclasses of VegetarianPizza. AmericanaPizza and AmericanHotPizza have been classied as NonVegetarianPizza. Things seemed to have worked.

 

<image003.png>

 

I can’t very those statements from the Set Theory. Am I missing something here? 

 

Best Regards,

 

Kofi 

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

Csongor Nyulas
Administrator
Kofi,

If you are using Protege 5.0 or 5.1 you can switch between the asserted and the inferred view of the class hierarchy by choosing different values in the dropdown list at the upper right corner of the the "Class hierarchy" view. Tip: you can also use the key "A" and "I" to swap between the asserted and inferred class hierarchy.
The inferred knowledge is highlighted with yellow background in Protege. So once you select the American pizza you will see that it has "NonVegetarianPizza" inferred as its superclass. I selected that inferred axiom in this screen shot:



If you press on the "?" icon, you will get an explanation (or sometimes even more) for why this class is entailed to be subclass of NonVegetarianPizza. The key axioms are the DisjointWith axioms that make the different topping disjoint with each other.

Csongor



On 11/04/2016 11:21 AM, Dr. Kofi Nyamekye wrote:

Rafael:

 

The purpose of doing the Pizza example is to get me up to speed on Protégé since I stopped using it about two years ago – to work on some other research activity. I have some new research program which I need to use an ontology, which I believe Protégé will do it.

 

From the basic mathematical set theory, if we define a set e.g., A  consisting of whole numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and a set B consisting of whole numbers 2,3, 4. Then the compliment of set B will be 1,5,7.

 

In the example, the NonVegetarianPizza is the compliment of VegetarianPizza. The VegetarianPizza has already been defined in the example, but using the set theory, I just can’t validate the statements on Page 86. I just want to ensure that the statements are in agreement with my thinking from the set theory.  That was the rationale behind my question.  By the way, prior to that page, I have been successful in validating everything in the tutorial.

 

Best Regards,

 

Kofi

 

From: protege-user [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rafael Gonçalves
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:41 PM
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [protege-user] CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

 

Kofi,

 

Perhaps you’re missing some knowledge of the underlying description logics and/or set theory. It’s unclear what you’re trying to achieve...

 

Cheers,

Rafael

 

 

P.S. Please do not use capitalize email subjects. And there is no need to send the same email more than once under a different subject...

 

 

On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:15, Dr. Kofi Nyamekye <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Matthew:

 

I am following your PROGETEOWLTUTORIAL to build the Pizza example. On Page 86 (Exercise 55), you have the following statements about the reasoner. 

 

Exercise 55: Use the reasoner to classify the ontology (Page 86)

 

1. Press the `Classify...' button in the Reasoner toolbar. After a short time the reasoner will have computed the inferred class hierarchy, and the inferred class hierarchy pane will pop open.

 

The inferred class hierarchy should resemble the picture shown in Figure 6.4. As can be seen, MargheritaPizza and SohoPizza have been classi_ed as subclasses of VegetarianPizza. AmericanaPizza and AmericanHotPizza have been classied as NonVegetarianPizza. Things seemed to have worked.

 

<image003.png>

 

I can’t very those statements from the Set Theory. Am I missing something here? 

 

Best Regards,

 

Kofi 

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

 



_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

Dr. Kofi Nyamekye

Csongor:

 

Thank you very much for the clarification.

 

Best Regards,

 

Kofi

 

From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Csongor Nyulas
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 1:45 PM
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [protege-user] CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

 

Kofi,

If you are using Protege 5.0 or 5.1 you can switch between the asserted and the inferred view of the class hierarchy by choosing different values in the dropdown list at the upper right corner of the the "Class hierarchy" view. Tip: you can also use the key "A" and "I" to swap between the asserted and inferred class hierarchy.
The inferred knowledge is highlighted with yellow background in Protege. So once you select the American pizza you will see that it has "NonVegetarianPizza" inferred as its superclass. I selected that inferred axiom in this screen shot:



If you press on the "?" icon, you will get an explanation (or sometimes even more) for why this class is entailed to be subclass of NonVegetarianPizza. The key axioms are the DisjointWith axioms that make the different topping disjoint with each other.

Csongor


On 11/04/2016 11:21 AM, Dr. Kofi Nyamekye wrote:

Rafael:

 

The purpose of doing the Pizza example is to get me up to speed on Protégé since I stopped using it about two years ago – to work on some other research activity. I have some new research program which I need to use an ontology, which I believe Protégé will do it.

 

From the basic mathematical set theory, if we define a set e.g., A  consisting of whole numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and a set B consisting of whole numbers 2,3, 4. Then the compliment of set B will be 1,5,7.

 

In the example, the NonVegetarianPizza is the compliment of VegetarianPizza. The VegetarianPizza has already been defined in the example, but using the set theory, I just can’t validate the statements on Page 86. I just want to ensure that the statements are in agreement with my thinking from the set theory.  That was the rationale behind my question.  By the way, prior to that page, I have been successful in validating everything in the tutorial.

 

Best Regards,

 

Kofi

 

From: protege-user [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rafael Gonçalves
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:41 PM
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [protege-user] CAN'T USE THE SET THEORY TO CONFIRM REASONER'S ANALYSIS ON PAGE 86 IN PROGETE_OWL_TUTORIAL

 

Kofi,

 

Perhaps you’re missing some knowledge of the underlying description logics and/or set theory. It’s unclear what you’re trying to achieve...

 

Cheers,

Rafael

 

 

P.S. Please do not use capitalize email subjects. And there is no need to send the same email more than once under a different subject...

 

 

On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:15, Dr. Kofi Nyamekye <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Matthew:

 

I am following your PROGETEOWLTUTORIAL to build the Pizza example. On Page 86 (Exercise 55), you have the following statements about the reasoner. 

 

Exercise 55: Use the reasoner to classify the ontology (Page 86)

 

1. Press the `Classify...' button in the Reasoner toolbar. After a short time the reasoner will have computed the inferred class hierarchy, and the inferred class hierarchy pane will pop open.

 

The inferred class hierarchy should resemble the picture shown in Figure 6.4. As can be seen, MargheritaPizza and SohoPizza have been classi_ed as subclasses of VegetarianPizza. AmericanaPizza and AmericanHotPizza have been classied as NonVegetarianPizza. Things seemed to have worked.

 

<image003.png>

 

I can’t very those statements from the Set Theory. Am I missing something here? 

 

Best Regards,

 

Kofi 

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

 




_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user