Re: defining SimpleEvent (Thomas Russ)

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

Re: defining SimpleEvent (Thomas Russ)

Alexander Nakhimovsky
Thank you, I was wondering about this. So, if an individual is
intended to be a SimpleEvent has to be asserted as of class
SimpleEvent, not Event because SimpleEvent cannot be inferred from
Event + no sub-events. However, if the individual is so asserted and I
try to to give a sub-event, the reasoner will notice the
contradiction. Is this correct?

> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:13:40 -0700
> From: Thomas Russ <[hidden email]>
> To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
>        <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [protege-owl] defining SimpleEvent
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Alexander Nakhimovsky wrote:
>
>> In the em: namespace I define a class Event and a property
>> hasSubEvent. I would like to distinguish CompoundEvent (has subEvents)
>> from SimpleEvent. The latter can be defined as (1) restriction on
>> hasSubEvent of type Event has cardinality 0, or (2) is equivalentClass
>> to intersectionOf (Event and complementOF CompoundEvent). My questions
>> are:
>>
>> 1. Which of the two definitions of SimpleEvent is better stylistically
>> or computationally?
>
> Stylistically I like the cardinality approach.  It seems to give a parallelism between
>
>  CompoundEvent == Event and min hasEvent 1
>  SimpleEvent == Event and max hasEvent 0
>
> Computationally I don't think it matters.
>
> What you will discover in either case, is that inference that something is a SimpleEvent will run into issues with open world semantics, so that effectively you will have to declare all SimpleEvents as being SimpleEvents.  Open world makes it impossible to infer maximum cardinality just by noticing the lack of values.  It must be affirmatively asserted.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
>
> End of protege-owl Digest, Vol 60, Issue 31
> *******************************************
>



--
Alexander Nakhimovsky, Computer Science Department
Colgate University Hamilton NY 13346
   http://cs.colgate.edu/~sasha
Director, Linguistics Program
   http://www.colgate.edu/linguistics
Director, Project Afghanistan
   http://www.colgate.edu/projectafghanistan
t. +1 315 228 7586 f. +1 315 228 7009
_______________________________________________
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: defining SimpleEvent (Thomas Russ)

Thomas Russ

On Jul 26, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Alexander Nakhimovsky wrote:

> Thank you, I was wondering about this. So, if an individual is
> intended to be a SimpleEvent has to be asserted as of class
> SimpleEvent, not Event because SimpleEvent cannot be inferred from
> Event + no sub-events. However, if the individual is so asserted and I
> try to to give a sub-event, the reasoner will notice the
> contradiction. Is this correct?

Yes.

>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:13:40 -0700
>> From: Thomas Russ <[hidden email]>
>> To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
>>        <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [protege-owl] defining SimpleEvent
>> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Alexander Nakhimovsky wrote:
>>
>>> In the em: namespace I define a class Event and a property
>>> hasSubEvent. I would like to distinguish CompoundEvent (has subEvents)
>>> from SimpleEvent. The latter can be defined as (1) restriction on
>>> hasSubEvent of type Event has cardinality 0, or (2) is equivalentClass
>>> to intersectionOf (Event and complementOF CompoundEvent). My questions
>>> are:
>>>
>>> 1. Which of the two definitions of SimpleEvent is better stylistically
>>> or computationally?
>>
>> Stylistically I like the cardinality approach.  It seems to give a parallelism between
>>
>>  CompoundEvent == Event and min hasEvent 1
>>  SimpleEvent == Event and max hasEvent 0
>>
>> Computationally I don't think it matters.
>>
>> What you will discover in either case, is that inference that something is a SimpleEvent will run into issues with open world semantics, so that effectively you will have to declare all SimpleEvents as being SimpleEvents.  Open world makes it impossible to infer maximum cardinality just by noticing the lack of values.  It must be affirmatively asserted.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>>
>> End of protege-owl Digest, Vol 60, Issue 31
>> *******************************************
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alexander Nakhimovsky, Computer Science Department
> Colgate University Hamilton NY 13346
>    http://cs.colgate.edu/~sasha
> Director, Linguistics Program
>    http://www.colgate.edu/linguistics
> Director, Project Afghanistan
>    http://www.colgate.edu/projectafghanistan
> t. +1 315 228 7586 f. +1 315 228 7009
> _______________________________________________
> 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