On Feb 3, 2011, at 1:19 AM, brian dorsey wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
> I'm not completely sure if this is what you want, but what about the
> following construct:
>
> ClassB: (inverse of hasProp) hasValue IndividualA
>
> That would mean that all individuals in ClassB would have the
> inverse of property hasProp with IndividualA. From that it should
> follow that IndividualA must have the hasProp property with every
> individual in ClassB.
>
>
> I was thinking the same. However, individuals of ClassB may also
> have relationships to other individuals of ClassA and/or other
> classes.
The hasValue restriction doesn't preclude other fillers of the
property. All it asserts is that the given individual must be one
value of the property. Other values of that property are allowed but
not required.
I think this is likely to give you the results that you want, at the
cost of adding a lot of what seems to be individual-centric
information to the more general class ClassB.
> I was thinking I could express the following DL logic statement:
> Person(bob)
> likes(bob,FictionalBook)
>
> Is such a statement permitted in OWL-FULL? Would this be how one
> could write it down?
You could write such a statement in OWL-FULL. Or in OWL 2 using
punning.
But you would not get any inference from it. In particular, you would
not get all known individuals of FictionalBook as values. Instead you
would just get the class back and would need to use some other
reasoning process to make the connection with the known individuals.
> If this is not a valid OWL-DL statement, could it be used as a
> syntactic sugar (on paper) to represent the enumerated "likes"
> property?
I suppose you could do that.
But unless you translate that into something that a DL reasoner would
understand, you would be in the position of having to re-interpret it
or periodically revisit it to make sure the additional assertions at
the individual level are added. I think the hasValue with the inverse
property looks like the most convenient modeling approach.
> That is, could one say the following as ease of exposition, that
> "likes(bob,FictionalBook)" is representative of bob liking the set
> of all fictional books where this statement is a syntactic sugar for
> the enumeration of "likes(bob,aliceInWonderLand)",
> "likes(bob,starWars)" and so forth as new individuals are added to
> the class of FictionalBook.
You might find this article interesting:
http://knoesis.wright.edu/faculty/pascal/resources/publications/dl08-mice.pdf_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owlInstructions for unsubscribing:
http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03