QCR vs. non-QCR

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

QCR vs. non-QCR

Aqualung
This is not as much a formal problem, I agree, but a psychological one: Any human confronted with a non-QCR will rush to examine the domain and ranges of the property involved, whereas a QCR (regardless of whether it is owl:Thing or something else within owl:Thing) might not generate the same compulsion. Whoever examines a QCR will most likely assume that the property in question either does not have a domain and/or range specified, or that the range is owl:Thing. At any rate, I, for one, would prefer that non-QCRs stayed non-QCRs if possible, regardless of the superfluousness of the owl:Thing qualification.

Many thanks for the reply.

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

Re: QCR vs. non-QCR

Igor Toujilov-2

Please note that in OWL, domains and ranges of object properties are very loosely (if at all) coupled with what you specify in QCR. The only purpose of domains and ranges in OWL is to make an inference: if there is a triple i1 p i2, then i1 belongs to the domain of p, and i2 belongs to the range of p. So, you can use any class in QCR regardless of domains and ranges.

"Any human confronted with a non-QCR will rush to examine the domain and ranges of the property involved.."

 
No, at least not me.
 

Regards,

Igor

 

 
 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 4:42 PM
From: "Cristian Cocos" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-user] QCR vs. non-QCR
This is not as much a formal problem, I agree, but a psychological one: Any human confronted with a non-QCR will rush to examine the domain and ranges of the property involved, whereas a QCR (regardless of whether it is owl:Thing or something else within owl:Thing) might not generate the same compulsion. Whoever examines a QCR will most likely assume that the property in question either does not have a domain and/or range specified, or that the range is owl:Thing. At any rate, I, for one, would prefer that non-QCRs stayed non-QCRs if possible, regardless of the superfluousness of the owl:Thing qualification.
 
Many thanks for the reply.
_______________________________________________ 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: QCR vs. non-QCR

samsontu


On Aug 22, 2019, at 4:53 PM, Igor Toujilov <[hidden email]> wrote:

"Any human confronted with a non-QCR will rush to examine the domain and ranges of the property involved.."

 
No, at least not me.


Ditto.

A human should be trained to think “Aha, non-QCR” when he/she sees something like ""test:isIssuedBy exactly 1 owl:Thing"


With best regards,
Samson


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

smime.p7s (1K) Download Attachment