Computational Complexity

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

Computational Complexity

Arnab Sinha-2
Hello Everybody,

Is there any way in Protege 4.1.0 to create OWL ontology restricted to
DL-Lite? Actually I am concerned with the computational complexity of
reasoning and want to remain within polynomial time. ( The OWL
ontology I've created uses simple relations and not a complex one. )
So I just want to make sure that it remains restricted to the limits.

Have a good day!

Thanking You,

Regards,
Arnab
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Computational Complexity

Matthew Horridge-2
Administrator
Hi Arnab,

There's currently no way to enforce or check that on OWL ontology falls into one of the given OWL 2 profiles (e.g. OWL2EL).  I think I am correct in saying that we plan to add support for editing and checking against a given profile some time in the (nearish) future.

Cheers,

Matthew




On 17 Oct 2011, at 05:13, Arnab Sinha wrote:

> Hello Everybody,
>
> Is there any way in Protege 4.1.0 to create OWL ontology restricted to
> DL-Lite? Actually I am concerned with the computational complexity of
> reasoning and want to remain within polynomial time. ( The OWL
> ontology I've created uses simple relations and not a complex one. )
> So I just want to make sure that it remains restricted to the limits.
>
> Have a good day!
>
> Thanking You,
>
> Regards,
> Arnab
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

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

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Computational Complexity

Thomas Schneider-2
Hi Arnab,

having read your question literally, I'm inclined to say: yes, you can always create a DL-Lite (or EL) ontology in Protégé 4. You will have to ensure manually that it stays within the profile, which means you'll have to understand the DL-Lite syntax given in one of the fundamental DL-Lite papers [1] or in the Description Logic Handbook, or in the OWL 2 specification [2] although the latter is a bit tedious to work through.

You should be aware that, even if you ensure that your ontology is in DL-Lite, it may still be that multi-purpose reasoners such as FaCT++, Pellet, HermiT use the generic decision procedure. I'm not sure whether any of them checks for membership in the profiles and then applies a more efficient reasoning procedure, and I tend to guess that they normally don't. (I'm happy to be contradicted.) However, if you plan to apply a special-purpose DL-Lite reasoner, then, yes, it makes sense to ensure that your ontology stays within the profile. But then I can imagine that such reasoners come with a validation routine that you can use to check whether your ontology falls into the profile. That would be a specific question to the reasoner documentation or developers.

Cheers

Thomas

[1] Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Riccardo Rosati: Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3): 385-429 (2007) http://www.springerlink.com/content/n17338715966v81h/

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/#OWL_2_QL

On 17.10.2011, at 20:25, Matthew Horridge wrote:

> Hi Arnab,
>
> There's currently no way to enforce or check that on OWL ontology falls into one of the given OWL 2 profiles (e.g. OWL2EL).  I think I am correct in saying that we plan to add support for editing and checking against a given profile some time in the (nearish) future.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Oct 2011, at 05:13, Arnab Sinha wrote:
>
>> Hello Everybody,
>>
>> Is there any way in Protege 4.1.0 to create OWL ontology restricted to
>> DL-Lite? Actually I am concerned with the computational complexity of
>> reasoning and want to remain within polynomial time. ( The OWL
>> ontology I've created uses simple relations and not a complex one. )
>> So I just want to make sure that it remains restricted to the limits.
>>
>> Have a good day!
>>
>> Thanking You,
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arnab
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> 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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ramsgate (n.)
All institutional buildings must, by law, contain at least twenty Ramsgates. These are the doors which open the opposite way to the one you expect.

Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff

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

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03