Creating a complete individual based on the Concept!

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

Creating a complete individual based on the Concept!

Rajverma

Hi List,

 

I want to create an individual for a certain concept that has role depth of more than 1… I don’t know whether it is not possible in protégé or I’m not able to do so… Please have a look at the owl ontology (attached file)…

 

Here, I want to create an individual for the concept ‘HappyHearPatient’… The necessary conditions for this concept ‘HappyHeartPatient’ says that,

 

(hasValve min 3 Valve) and (hasValve max 1 (Valve and (hasCondition some Weak)))

 

(i)                   He must have atleast 3 hasValve relations where the concept Valve is true…

 

HHP

/  |  \

                                                                hV /    |    \ hV

                                                                   /  hV|      \

                                                           Valve   Valve   Valve

 

(ii)                 He can have atmost 1 hasValve relation, where the concept Valve is true, ‘and’ that has some hasCondition relation where the concept Weak is true…

 

HHP

/  |  \

                                                                hV /    |    \ hV

                                                                   /  hV|      \

                                                           Valve   Valve   Valve

   |

          hC |

   |

                                                                       Weak

 

So this above model is a satisfiable instance for the ‘HappyHeartPatient’ concept… but the problem here is, we can only define upto the first level of role depth, which means, there is a widget for hasValve relation but there is no further possibility to define the hasCondition relation, which continues the role chain, in the individuals tab …

 

I want to define the following inconsistent individual for the ‘HappyHeartPatient’ so that I want to see weather the reasoner raises an error…

 

HHP

/  |  \

                                                                hV /    |    \ hV

                                                                   /  hV|      \

                                                           Valve   Valve   Valve

   |          |

          hC |          |

   |          |

                                                                       Weak   Weak

 

Is it possible to define this kind of individual in Protégé?

 

Thankyou,

Raj

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Creating a complete individual based on the Concept!

Rajverma

Sorry for the double post, I forgot to attach my ontology with the previous post…

 

Hi List,

 

I want to create an individual for a certain concept that has role depth of more than 1… I don’t know whether it is not possible in protégé or I’m not able to do so… Please have a look at the owl ontology (attached file)…

 

Here, I want to create an individual for the concept ‘HappyHearPatient’… The necessary conditions for this concept ‘HappyHeartPatient’ says that,

 

(hasValve min 3 Valve) and (hasValve max 1 (Valve and (hasCondition some Weak)))

 

(i)                   He must have atleast 3 hasValve relations where the concept Valve is true…

 

HHP

/  |  \

                                                                hV /    |    \ hV

                                                                   /  hV|      \

                                                           Valve   Valve   Valve

 

(ii)                 He can have atmost 1 hasValve relation, where the concept Valve is true, ‘and’ that has some hasCondition relation where the concept Weak is true…

 

HHP

/  |  \

                                                                hV /    |    \ hV

                                                                   /  hV|      \

                                                           Valve   Valve   Valve

   |

          hC |

   |

                                                                       Weak

 

So this above model is a satisfiable instance for the ‘HappyHeartPatient’ concept… but the problem here is, we can only define upto the first level of role depth, which means, there is a widget for hasValve relation but there is no further possibility to define the hasCondition relation, which continues the role chain, in the individuals tab …

 

I want to define the following inconsistent individual for the ‘HappyHeartPatient’ so that I want to see weather the reasoner raises an error…

 

HHP

/  |  \

                                                                hV /    |    \ hV

                                                                   /  hV|      \

                                                           Valve   Valve   Valve

   |          |

          hC |          |

   |          |

                                                                       Weak   Weak

 

Is it possible to define this kind of individual in Protégé?

 

Thankyou,

Raj

 


patient.owl (7K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creating a complete individual based on the Concept!

Nick Drummond
Raj,

I won't get into the modelling complexities of this (not because it's
not interesting, but bug lists don't ever get shorter), but I just
wanted to point out the OWL DL Individuals tab [1] which allows you to
make arbitrary statements about individuals - such as their (possibly
anonymous) class membership and relations with named or anonymous
individuals. A bit of experimenting might allow you to express what you
want.

Nick

[1] http://www.co-ode.org/downloads/owldlindividualstab/co-ode-index.php

Mudunuri, Raj wrote:

>
> Sorry for the double post, I forgot to attach my ontology with the
> previous post…
>
> Hi List,
>
> I want to create an individual for a certain concept that has role
> depth of more than 1… I don’t know whether it is not possible in
> protégé or I’m not able to do so… Please have a look at the owl
> ontology (attached file)…
>
> Here, I want to create an individual for the concept
> ‘HappyHearPatient’… The necessary conditions for this concept
> ‘HappyHeartPatient’ says that,
>
> (hasValve min 3 Valve) and (hasValve max 1 (Valve and (hasCondition
> some Weak)))
>
> (i) He must have atleast 3 hasValve relations where the concept Valve
> is true…
>
> HHP
>
> / | \
>
> hV / | \ hV
>
> / hV| \
>
> Valve Valve Valve
>
> (ii) He can have atmost 1 hasValve relation, where the concept Valve
> is true, ‘and’ that has some hasCondition relation where the concept
> Weak is true…
>
> HHP
>
> / | \
>
> hV / | \ hV
>
> / hV| \
>
> Valve Valve Valve
>
> |
>
> hC |
>
> |
>
> Weak
>
> So this above model is a satisfiable instance for the
> ‘HappyHeartPatient’ concept… but the problem here is, we can only
> define upto the first level of role depth, which means, there is a
> widget for hasValve relation but there is no further possibility to
> define the hasCondition relation, which continues the role chain, in
> the individuals tab …
>
> I want to define the following inconsistent individual for the
> ‘HappyHeartPatient’ so that I want to see weather the reasoner raises
> an error…
>
> HHP
>
> / | \
>
> hV / | \ hV
>
> / hV| \
>
> Valve Valve Valve
>
> | |
>
> hC | |
>
> | |
>
> Weak Weak
>
> Is it possible to define this kind of individual in Protégé?
>
> Thankyou,
>
> Raj
>

--

Nick Drummond

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/ <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creating a complete individual based on the Concept!

Scott L Holmes
Nick wrote:
Holy Toledo - this is an eye opener. I'd seen this before but didn't get what I was looking at. This technique is OWL DL, I'm guessing? And represents a way to reason over individuals?
 
woah.
 
MORE! MORE! I need to know more about the OWL semantics of this. Where can I go to find out some more about this technique?
 
Scott
 
On 4/20/06, Nick Drummond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Raj,

I won't get into the modelling complexities of this (not because it's
not interesting, but bug lists don't ever get shorter), but I just
wanted to point out the OWL DL Individuals tab [1] which allows you to
make arbitrary statements about individuals - such as their (possibly
anonymous) class membership and relations with named or anonymous
individuals. A bit of experimenting might allow you to express what you
want.

Nick

[1] http://www.co-ode.org/downloads/owldlindividualstab/co-ode-index.php

Mudunuri, Raj wrote:
>
> Sorry for the double post, I forgot to attach my ontology with the

> previous post…
>
> Hi List,
>
> I want to create an individual for a certain concept that has role
> depth of more than 1… I don't know whether it is not possible in
> protégé or I'm not able to do so… Please have a look at the owl
> ontology (attached file)…
>
> Here, I want to create an individual for the concept
> 'HappyHearPatient'… The necessary conditions for this concept
> 'HappyHeartPatient' says that,
>
> (hasValve min 3 Valve) and (hasValve max 1 (Valve and (hasCondition
> some Weak)))
>
> (i) He must have atleast 3 hasValve relations where the concept Valve
> is true…
>
> HHP
>
> / | \
>
> hV / | \ hV
>
> / hV| \
>
> Valve Valve Valve
>
> (ii) He can have atmost 1 hasValve relation, where the concept Valve
> is true, 'and' that has some hasCondition relation where the concept
> Weak is true…
>
> HHP
>
> / | \
>
> hV / | \ hV
>
> / hV| \
>
> Valve Valve Valve
>
> |
>
> hC |
>
> |
>
> Weak
>
> So this above model is a satisfiable instance for the
> 'HappyHeartPatient' concept… but the problem here is, we can only
> define upto the first level of role depth, which means, there is a
> widget for hasValve relation but there is no further possibility to
> define the hasCondition relation, which continues the role chain, in
> the individuals tab …
>
> I want to define the following inconsistent individual for the
> 'HappyHeartPatient' so that I want to see weather the reasoner raises
> an error…
>
> HHP
>
> / | \
>
> hV / | \ hV
>
> / hV| \
>
> Valve Valve Valve
>
> | |
>
> hC | |
>
> | |
>
> Weak Weak
>
> Is it possible to define this kind of individual in Protégé?
>
> Thankyou,
>
> Raj
>

--

Nick Drummond

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/ < http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Creating a complete individual based on the Concept!

Nick Drummond
Scott, I can only really send you to the OWL specs [1]
However there is a really nice reasoning with individuals tutorial at [2]

Nick

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
[2] http://owl.man.ac.uk/2005/07/sssw/

Scott L Holmes wrote:

> Nick wrote:
> " [1]
> http://www.co-ode.org/downloads/owldlindividualstab/co-ode-index.php "
> Holy Toledo - this is an eye opener. I'd seen this before but didn't
> get what I was looking at. This technique is OWL DL, I'm guessing? And
> represents a way to reason over individuals?
> woah.
> MORE! MORE! I need to know more about the OWL semantics of this. Where
> can I go to find out some more about this technique?
> Scott
> On 4/20/06, *Nick Drummond* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Raj,
>
>     I won't get into the modelling complexities of this (not because it's
>     not interesting, but bug lists don't ever get shorter), but I just
>     wanted to point out the OWL DL Individuals tab [1] which allows you to
>     make arbitrary statements about individuals - such as their (possibly
>     anonymous) class membership and relations with named or anonymous
>     individuals. A bit of experimenting might allow you to express
>     what you
>     want.
>
>     Nick
>
>     [1]
>     http://www.co-ode.org/downloads/owldlindividualstab/co-ode-index.php
>
>     Mudunuri, Raj wrote:
>     >
>     > Sorry for the double post, I forgot to attach my ontology with the
>     > previous post…
>     >
>     > Hi List,
>     >
>     > I want to create an individual for a certain concept that has role
>     > depth of more than 1… I don't know whether it is not possible in
>     > protégé or I'm not able to do so… Please have a look at the owl
>     > ontology (attached file)…
>     >
>     > Here, I want to create an individual for the concept
>     > 'HappyHearPatient'… The necessary conditions for this concept
>     > 'HappyHeartPatient' says that,
>     >
>     > (hasValve min 3 Valve) and (hasValve max 1 (Valve and (hasCondition
>     > some Weak)))
>     >
>     > (i) He must have atleast 3 hasValve relations where the concept
>     Valve
>     > is true…
>     >
>     > HHP
>     >
>     > / | \
>     >
>     > hV / | \ hV
>     >
>     > / hV| \
>     >
>     > Valve Valve Valve
>     >
>     > (ii) He can have atmost 1 hasValve relation, where the concept
>     Valve
>     > is true, 'and' that has some hasCondition relation where the concept
>     > Weak is true…
>     >
>     > HHP
>     >
>     > / | \
>     >
>     > hV / | \ hV
>     >
>     > / hV| \
>     >
>     > Valve Valve Valve
>     >
>     > |
>     >
>     > hC |
>     >
>     > |
>     >
>     > Weak
>     >
>     > So this above model is a satisfiable instance for the
>     > 'HappyHeartPatient' concept… but the problem here is, we can only
>     > define upto the first level of role depth, which means, there is a
>     > widget for hasValve relation but there is no further possibility to
>     > define the hasCondition relation, which continues the role
>     chain, in
>     > the individuals tab …
>     >
>     > I want to define the following inconsistent individual for the
>     > 'HappyHeartPatient' so that I want to see weather the reasoner
>     raises
>     > an error…
>     >
>     > HHP
>     >
>     > / | \
>     >
>     > hV / | \ hV
>     >
>     > / hV| \
>     >
>     > Valve Valve Valve
>     >
>     > | |
>     >
>     > hC | |
>     >
>     > | |
>     >
>     > Weak Weak
>     >
>     > Is it possible to define this kind of individual in Protégé?
>     >
>     > Thankyou,
>     >
>     > Raj
>     >
>
>     --
>
>     Nick Drummond
>
>     http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/
>     <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/> <
>     http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/>
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe go to
>     http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>     <http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html>
>
>

--

Nick Drummond

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/ <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html