Class equivalent to

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

Class equivalent to

alrama
Which is the semantic difference between using just one "equivalent to" class
statement, but compounds by more concatenated ANDs clauses and put same
clauses as multiple single "equivalent to" restrictions (more plus button
interactions) ?
I tried this and found no difference in results inference. I found only a
compound statement not always could be used to generate the corrispondent
closure axiom.



--
Sent from: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Protege-User-f4659818.html
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Class equivalent to

Lorenz B.
There is a major difference:

A EquivalentTo (B And C)

is logically equivalent to

A SubClassOf (B And C)
(B And C) SubClassOf A

which can be further rewritten to

A SubClassOf B
A SubClassOf C
(B And C) SubClassOf A


On the other hand

A EquivalentTo B
A EquivalentTo C

is logically equivalent to

A SubClassOf B
B SubClassOf A
A SubClassOf C
C SubClassOf A

the obvious difference is

(B And C) SubClassOf A

which is not logically equivalent to

B SubClassOf A
C SubClassOf A


set-theorie will prove it if you don't believe me


Which is the semantic difference between using just one "equivalent to" class
statement, but compounds by more concatenated ANDs clauses and put same
clauses as multiple single "equivalent to" restrictions (more plus button
interactions) ?
I tried this and found no difference in results inference. I found only a
compound statement not always could be used to generate the corrispondent
closure axiom.



--
Sent from: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Protege-User-f4659818.html
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

-- 
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

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

Re: Class equivalent to

alrama
your explaination about the difference is absolutely clear,
thank you

Il giorno mer 5 giu 2019 alle ore 13:46 Lorenz B. <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
There is a major difference:

A EquivalentTo (B And C)

is logically equivalent to

A SubClassOf (B And C)
(B And C) SubClassOf A

which can be further rewritten to

A SubClassOf B
A SubClassOf C
(B And C) SubClassOf A


On the other hand

A EquivalentTo B
A EquivalentTo C

is logically equivalent to

A SubClassOf B
B SubClassOf A
A SubClassOf C
C SubClassOf A

the obvious difference is

(B And C) SubClassOf A

which is not logically equivalent to

B SubClassOf A
C SubClassOf A


set-theorie will prove it if you don't believe me


Which is the semantic difference between using just one "equivalent to" class
statement, but compounds by more concatenated ANDs clauses and put same
clauses as multiple single "equivalent to" restrictions (more plus button
interactions) ?
I tried this and found no difference in results inference. I found only a
compound statement not always could be used to generate the corrispondent
closure axiom.



--
Sent from: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Protege-User-f4659818.html
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

-- 
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center
_______________________________________________
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