Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Wei Xing
Hi, Hai, Olivier,

Thanks for your answers. I see the point.

So if I have a RDF schema,  all the classes defined in this schema can
be regarded as legal OWL classes in OWL DL _JUST IN THE CASE_ that they
are not used as instances.

Cheers,

Wei

Hai Wang wrote:

> Hi Wei,
> OWL:Class is defined as a subclass of rdfs:class is because that  
> there are certain restrictions to  the classes on OWL DL and OWL  
> lite. Those restrictions make some legal RDFS classes illegal in OWL  
> DL/Lite. In OWL Full these restrictions do not exist and therefore  
> owl:Class and rdfs:Class are equivalent in OWL Full.
>
> E.g. if a rdfs class has been treated as instance, it will not be a  
> legal OWL DL class, as OWL DL
> requires a separation between classes and individuals.
>
> Cheers
> Hai
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2006, at 16:55, Wei Xing wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can someone explain to me why owl:class is defined as a subclass of  
>> rdfs:class, why some rdfs:class are not legal OWL DL class? can  
>> possible give me an example? Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Wei
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
>> subscribe.html
>>
>
> Regards
> Hai
>
>
> Research Associate
> Department of Computer Science
> Kilburn Building
> University of Manchester
> Oxford Road
> Manchester M13 9PL
> UK
> Homepage: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~hwang
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


--
============================================================
Wei Xing, M.Sc.
Research Associate                    Tel: 00357-22892663
Dept. of Computer Science             Fax: 00357-22892701
University of Cyprus                  email: [hidden email]
PO Box 20537
CY1678, Nicosia, CYPRUS


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Hai Wang
Hi Wei,
There are some other restrictions for OWL DL class. You can refer to  
OWL language reference for more details.

CHeers
Hai


On 20 Jan 2006, at 07:52, Wei Xing wrote:

> Hi, Hai, Olivier,
>
> Thanks for your answers. I see the point.
>
> So if I have a RDF schema,  all the classes defined in this schema  
> can be regarded as legal OWL classes in OWL DL _JUST IN THE CASE_  
> that they are not used as instances.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wei
>
> Hai Wang wrote:
>
>> Hi Wei,
>> OWL:Class is defined as a subclass of rdfs:class is because that  
>> there are certain restrictions to  the classes on OWL DL and OWL  
>> lite. Those restrictions make some legal RDFS classes illegal in  
>> OWL  DL/Lite. In OWL Full these restrictions do not exist and  
>> therefore  owl:Class and rdfs:Class are equivalent in OWL Full.
>>
>> E.g. if a rdfs class has been treated as instance, it will not be  
>> a  legal OWL DL class, as OWL DL
>> requires a separation between classes and individuals.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Hai
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 Jan 2006, at 16:55, Wei Xing wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can someone explain to me why owl:class is defined as a subclass  
>>> of  rdfs:class, why some rdfs:class are not legal OWL DL class?  
>>> can  possible give me an example? Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Wei
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- ---
>>> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
>>> subscribe.html
>>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Hai
>>
>>
>> Research Associate
>> Department of Computer Science
>> Kilburn Building
>> University of Manchester
>> Oxford Road
>> Manchester M13 9PL
>> UK
>> Homepage: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~hwang
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
>> subscribe.html
>>
>
>
> --
> ============================================================
> Wei Xing, M.Sc.
> Research Associate                    Tel: 00357-22892663
> Dept. of Computer Science             Fax: 00357-22892701
> University of Cyprus                  email: [hidden email]
> PO Box 20537
> CY1678, Nicosia, CYPRUS
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
> subscribe.html
>

Regards
Hai


Research Associate
Department of Computer Science
Kilburn Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
UK
Homepage: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~hwang



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Olivier Dameron
In reply to this post by Wei Xing
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:52:07 +0200, Wei Xing <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So if I have a RDF schema,  all the classes defined in this schema can
> be regarded as legal OWL classes in OWL DL _JUST IN THE CASE_ that they
> are not used as instances.

No, it is the other way around: all the owl classes are rdfs classes,
but rdfs classes are not necessarily owl classes, even if they are not
used as instances.

Olivier
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Klaus Schaefers
In reply to this post by Hai Wang
Hi

In the paper "Weaving the Biomedical Semantic Web with the Prot´eg´e OWL
Plugin" I found this statement:

"...and the property hasContents can link an
Image to an OWL class, such as those defined in
the brain cortex ontology. ..."

How can I do something with OWL? I thought it is not possible to treat a
class like an individual? How can I apply such a link? How do I define in
Protégé, that the property hasContent refers just to classes, but not to
individuals?

Cheers,

Klaus

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Andrea Proli
Hi Klaus,
there are 3 different versions of OWL, with increasingly higher expressive  
power. Each version is a semantic extension of a different subset of RDFS.  
OWL-Full, the most expressive (though undecidable) flavor, allows one to  
state everything that is also allowed by RDFS: consequently, it allows to  
treat a class as an individual. The same is forbidden in OWL-DL and  
OWL-Lite in order to keep the problems of subsumption and (in)consistency  
checking computationally tractable. So, the description you talk about is  
perfectly legal in OWL(-Full). However, I don't know how is it possible to  
state it with the OWL Plugin.
Best,

Andrea

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:52:08 +0100, Klaus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> In the paper "Weaving the Biomedical Semantic Web with the Prot?eg?e OWL
> Plugin" I found this statement:
>
> "...and the property hasContents can link an
> Image to an OWL class, such as those defined in
> the brain cortex ontology. ..."
>
> How can I do something with OWL? I thought it is not possible to treat a
> class like an individual? How can I apply such a link? How do I define in
> Protégé, that the property hasContent refers just to classes, but not to
> individuals?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Klaus
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Hai Wang
Hi Klaus,
As Andrea said, you can express it in OWL full without any problem,  
but you can not reasoning it by DL reasoner.  To state OWL full  
statement in Protege, you need to set the language profile to be OWL  
FULL.
Go to OWL->Preference->General, then  choose OWL DL as the Language  
Profile.

There are some other approaches to handle this problem within OWL DL  
scope.
You can refer to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-swbp-classes-as-values-20040721/
for details.

Regards
Hai

On 20 Jan 2006, at 12:51, Andrea Proli wrote:

> Hi Klaus,
> there are 3 different versions of OWL, with increasingly higher  
> expressive power. Each version is a semantic extension of a  
> different subset of RDFS. OWL-Full, the most expressive (though  
> undecidable) flavor, allows one to state everything that is also  
> allowed by RDFS: consequently, it allows to treat a class as an  
> individual. The same is forbidden in OWL-DL and OWL-Lite in order  
> to keep the problems of subsumption and (in)consistency checking  
> computationally tractable. So, the description you talk about is  
> perfectly legal in OWL(-Full). However, I don't know how is it  
> possible to state it with the OWL Plugin.
> Best,
>
> Andrea
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:52:08 +0100, Klaus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> In the paper "Weaving the Biomedical Semantic Web with the Prot?eg?
>> e OWL
>> Plugin" I found this statement:
>>
>> "...and the property hasContents can link an
>> Image to an OWL class, such as those defined in
>> the brain cortex ontology. ..."
>>
>> How can I do something with OWL? I thought it is not possible to  
>> treat a
>> class like an individual? How can I apply such a link? How do I  
>> define in
>> Protégé, that the property hasContent refers just to classes, but  
>> not to
>> individuals?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
>> subscribe.html
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
> subscribe.html
>

Regards
Hai


Research Associate
Department of Computer Science
Kilburn Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
UK
Homepage: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~hwang



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

biological expression ontology (special thead)

Paul S Prueitt
In reply to this post by Andrea Proli

Klaus and Andrea,

Your exchange is very interesting to me.

I make some extended remarks at

http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/generativeMethodology/133.htm


The Taos Research Institute
Taos New Mexico

comments?




-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:51 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class


Hi Klaus,
there are 3 different versions of OWL, with increasingly higher expressive
power. Each version is a semantic extension of a different subset of RDFS.
OWL-Full, the most expressive (though undecidable) flavor, allows one to
state everything that is also allowed by RDFS: consequently, it allows to
treat a class as an individual. The same is forbidden in OWL-DL and
OWL-Lite in order to keep the problems of subsumption and (in)consistency
checking computationally tractable. So, the description you talk about is
perfectly legal in OWL(-Full). However, I don't know how is it possible to
state it with the OWL Plugin.
Best,

Andrea

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:52:08 +0100, Klaus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> In the paper "Weaving the Biomedical Semantic Web with the Prot?eg?e OWL
> Plugin" I found this statement:
>
> "...and the property hasContents can link an
> Image to an OWL class, such as those defined in
> the brain cortex ontology. ..."
>
> How can I do something with OWL? I thought it is not possible to treat a
> class like an individual? How can I apply such a link? How do I define in
> Protégé, that the property hasContent refers just to classes, but not to
> individuals?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Klaus
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Christopher Menzel-2
In reply to this post by Andrea Proli
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:51:21PM +0100, Andrea Proli wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
> there are 3 different versions of OWL, with increasingly higher expressive  
> power. Each version is a semantic extension of a different subset of RDFS.  
> OWL-Full, the most expressive (though undecidable) flavor,

Is OWL Full known to be undecidable, or simply not known to be
decidable?  My quite possibly flawed understanding is that the increased
expressiveness of OWL Full -- notably, the ability to treat classes as
instances and the lifting of transitivity restrictions on complex
properties -- breaks the usual proofs of decidability for OWL DL, but I
didn't think Full had been shown positively undecidable.  Corrections
and/or references appreciated.

Thanks.

Chris Menzel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Andrea Proli-2
Hi Chris,
OWL Full is definetely known to be undecidable.
Indeed, OWL-DL is still very close to the undecidability boundary, and  
anything which is added to OWL-DL in order to make it more expressive  
(i.e. more kind of axiom types and/or class constructors) is likely to be  
a source of undecidability. For example, one source of undecidability is  
the harmful combination of transitive properties and non-simple roles.  
OWL-DL is mapped to a very expressive description logic usually referred  
to as SHOIN(D). Apart from allowing classes to be interpreted as instances  
of other classes, OWL-Full is a superset of the SHIN+ description logics,  
which is shown to be undecidable in

Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler, and Stephan Tobies. Practical reasoning for  
expressive
description logics. In Harald Ganzinger, David McAllester, and Andrei
Voronkov, editors, Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Logic for Programming  
and Automated
Reasoning (LPAR'99), number 1705 in Lecture Notes in Artificial  
Intelligence,
pages 161?180. Springer, 1999.

by reduction of the domino problem. You can find many other great papers  
 from the same authors about complexiy of reasoning in very expressive DLs,  
and also I suggest you to read some material from Calvanese, De Giacomo,  
Lenzerini, etc if you need to know more on this topic.

I wish to post as soon as possible some observations about the usefulness  
or uselessness of OWL-Full and the expressivity/tractability tradeoff in  
the Semantic Web context, as I think a few crucial issues need to be  
carefully investigated; or, in case someone already did that, I hope (s)he  
will reply (or perhaps anticipate questions with some discussion), since  
that would be a great chance for me to have an answer for some terrible  
doubts :-) I'm enjoying more and more every day collecting opinions and  
knowledge from such skilled people around this mailing list.
Thank you a lot, best

Andrea

In data Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:54 +0100, Chris Menzel <[hidden email]>  
ha scritto:

> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:51:21PM +0100, Andrea Proli wrote:
>> Hi Klaus,
>> there are 3 different versions of OWL, with increasingly higher  
>> expressive
>> power. Each version is a semantic extension of a different subset of  
>> RDFS.
>> OWL-Full, the most expressive (though undecidable) flavor,
>
> Is OWL Full known to be undecidable, or simply not known to be
> decidable?  My quite possibly flawed understanding is that the increased
> expressiveness of OWL Full -- notably, the ability to treat classes as
> instances and the lifting of transitivity restrictions on complex
> properties -- breaks the usual proofs of decidability for OWL DL, but I
> didn't think Full had been shown positively undecidable.  Corrections
> and/or references appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Christopher Menzel-2
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:07:00PM +0100, Andrea Proli wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> OWL Full is definitely known to be undecidable.  Indeed, OWL-DL is
> still very close to the undecidability boundary, and ...

This is great, just what I wanted to know!  Thanks very much, Andrea.
I appreciate it.

-chris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biological expression ontology (special thead)

Andrea Proli-2
In reply to this post by Paul S Prueitt
Paul,
let me say that your considerations are always thoughtful and interesting  
to read (at least, those parts my knowledge allows me to understand), even  
when teasing or constrasting with my own vision. Unfortunately, I have no  
time to reply as extensively as I would like to, so I just make some  
remark. You are probably right about the terminology namespace problem,  
but then why not to rename also "natural numbers", "complex numbers", and  
so on? Ambiguity exists, s**t happens... I think that with little effort  
we can clarify the context in which the terms we are using assume a  
particular meaning: indeed, we don't need namespaces to convey information  
in natural language.

Also, please note that the term "complexity" in the computer science  
community is just a shorthand for "computational complexity", where the  
adjective "computational" is inteded to clarify that the domain of  
discourse are *computer* programs and not natural systems. Computer  
Science (more precisely, Information Theory) tells us when and how  
computers could replace -and perhaps do better than- humans, and is not  
concerned in any way with figuring out what to do, with or without  
computers, when this is not the case.
Instead, as far as I understand, the "second school" vision is much about  
how computers can help humans doing better than computers, or doing what  
computers alone cannot do: that seems to be an ambitious discipline, maybe  
entangled with many other disciplines, and certainly *using* computer  
capabilities -and thus, Information Theory- as a tool, is that right?
But then, since it is your discipline that benefits from the tools offered  
by CS and IT, and not viceversa, why the language used by the former  
should be changed to accomodate the one used by the latter?

About SQL and OWL/Description Logics: I don't know if it could be  
interesting to you, but in the following paper the expressivity boundaries  
within which it is possible to answer a query posed over an ontology by  
rewriting it into a query posed over a relational DB (mature, efficient  
technology) have been well characterized. Unfortunately, such expressivity  
threshold is very low, and this could be the starting point for other  
interesting discussions: see

****
Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini,  
Riccardo Rosati: DL-Lite: Tractable Description Logics for Ontologies.  
AAAI 2005: 602-607
****

Best regards,

Andrea

P.S: I hope you are neither hurted nor offended by the way I write my  
questions and objections. If this is the case, I  sincerely apologize for  
them to either appear as rude or arrogant.

In data Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:33:59 +0100, Paul S Prueitt  
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
> Klaus and Andrea,
>
> Your exchange is very interesting to me.
>
> I make some extended remarks at
>
> http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/generativeMethodology/133.htm
>
>
> The Taos Research Institute
> Taos New Mexico
>
> comments?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:51 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [protege-owl] Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class
>
>
> Hi Klaus,
> there are 3 different versions of OWL, with increasingly higher  
> expressive
> power. Each version is a semantic extension of a different subset of  
> RDFS.
> OWL-Full, the most expressive (though undecidable) flavor, allows one to
> state everything that is also allowed by RDFS: consequently, it allows to
> treat a class as an individual. The same is forbidden in OWL-DL and
> OWL-Lite in order to keep the problems of subsumption and (in)consistency
> checking computationally tractable. So, the description you talk about is
> perfectly legal in OWL(-Full). However, I don't know how is it possible  
> to
> state it with the OWL Plugin.
> Best,
>
> Andrea
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:52:08 +0100, Klaus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> In the paper "Weaving the Biomedical Semantic Web with the Prot?eg?e OWL
>> Plugin" I found this statement:
>>
>> "...and the property hasContents can link an
>> Image to an OWL class, such as those defined in
>> the brain cortex ontology. ..."
>>
>> How can I do something with OWL? I thought it is not possible to treat a
>> class like an individual? How can I apply such a link? How do I define  
>> in
>> Protégé, that the property hasContent refers just to classes, but not to
>> individuals?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe go to  
>> http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biological expression ontology (special thread)

Paul S Prueitt

The link

 http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/generativeMethodology/133.htm

is a discussion about Rosen complexity.


I intend to develop a peer review of

http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/publications/KRMed2004-protege-owl.p
df
and
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/12/1120.pdf

with a focus on terminology use ..

I will post the paper when I am finished (in a week maybe less).

Andrea...

I posted your note and then some reflections at

http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/generativeMethodology/134.htm

thank you and everyone for the conversations

Paul Prueitt
Taos New Mexico




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biological expression ontology (special thread)

Andrea Proli-2
Paul, I read your very interesting comments and, as I already said, I  
agree with your considerations about the misleading meaning of some terms  
used in the CS community. But then, why "natural numbers" and "complex  
numbers" aren't also misleading to you? Do you feel mathematicians are  
"letting others eat a cake"? Do you claim those terms should be changed  
too? Please, give a motivated answer to this question (which I hope is  
"no"), and then go back and consider that the problem with CS terminology  
is exactly the same and should (just in my opinion, obviously) have the  
same solution: let things unchanged, and clarify the meaning of words  
through context.
Thanks a lot for your attention,

Andrea

In data Sat, 21 Jan 2006 03:14:12 +0100, Paul S Prueitt  
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
> The link
>
>  http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/generativeMethodology/133.htm
>
> is a discussion about Rosen complexity.
>
>
> I intend to develop a peer review of
>
> http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/publications/KRMed2004-protege-owl.p
> df
> and
> http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/12/1120.pdf
>
> with a focus on terminology use ..
>
> I will post the paper when I am finished (in a week maybe less).
>
> Andrea...
>
> I posted your note and then some reflections at
>
> http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/generativeMethodology/134.htm
>
> thank you and everyone for the conversations
>
> Paul Prueitt
> Taos New Mexico
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: biological expression ontology (special thread)

Paul S Prueitt

It is my hope that the over use of the term "semantic", "understand",
"intelligence", and related terms would be more carefully used so that when
CP is applied to real world problems that the user is not mislead.

I conjecture there is vlaue in the more full expression of the references.





-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: biological expression ontology (special
thread)


Paul, I read your very interesting comments and, as I already said, I
agree with your considerations about the misleading meaning of some terms
used in the CS community. But then, why "natural numbers" and "complex
numbers" aren't also misleading to you? Do you feel mathematicians are
"letting others eat a cake"? Do you claim those terms should be changed
too? Please, give a motivated answer to this question (which I hope is
"no"), and then go back and consider that the problem with CS terminology
is exactly the same and should (just in my opinion, obviously) have the
same solution: let things unchanged, and clarify the meaning of words
through context.
Thanks a lot for your attention,

Andrea

In data Sat, 21 Jan 2006 03:14:12 +0100, Paul S Prueitt
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
> The link
>
>  http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/generativeMethodology/133.htm
>
> is a discussion about Rosen complexity.
>
>
> I intend to develop a peer review of
>
>
http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/publications/KRMed2004-protege-owl.p

> df
> and
> http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/12/1120.pdf
>
> with a focus on terminology use ..
>
> I will post the paper when I am finished (in a week maybe less).
>
> Andrea...
>
> I posted your note and then some reflections at
>
> http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/generativeMethodology/134.htm
>
> thank you and everyone for the conversations
>
> Paul Prueitt
> Taos New Mexico
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

appletGUI_for_OWL_Server?

Ronnie Valkky
In reply to this post by Hai Wang
Hi,

is it possible & does it make sense to build java applet which would offer
client based GUI
to access OWL KB and reasoners in server ?

could ProtegeOWL locate in server ?

any known activities and projects ?

thanks in advance
Ronnie


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: appletGUI_for_OWL_Server?

sschlmr
Srini,

No, I meant the code you wrote for probabilistic word (phrase?) match.
I need something like this to match mode names.  I recall that you said
I should look for SVM.  I have but have not found concrete examples of
implementations.

-steve

On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 11:09, Ronnie Valkky wrote:

> Hi,
>
> is it possible & does it make sense to build java applet which would offer
> client based GUI
> to access OWL KB and reasoners in server ?
>
> could ProtegeOWL locate in server ?
>
> any known activities and projects ?
>
> thanks in advance
> Ronnie
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: appletGUI_for_OWL_Server?

sschlmr
This was sent in error.  Please ignore.

Sorry

-steve

On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 17:17, Steve Schleimer wrote:

> Srini,
>
> No, I meant the code you wrote for probabilistic word (phrase?) match.
> I need something like this to match mode names.  I recall that you said
> I should look for SVM.  I have but have not found concrete examples of
> implementations.
>
> -steve
>
> On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 11:09, Ronnie Valkky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > is it possible & does it make sense to build java applet which would offer
> > client based GUI
> > to access OWL KB and reasoners in server ?
> >
> > could ProtegeOWL locate in server ?
> >
> > any known activities and projects ?
> >
> > thanks in advance
> > Ronnie
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class

Schentz Herbert
In reply to this post by Wei Xing
Hi Andrea!
Does WSML (http://www.wsmo.org/wsml/) try to avoid that undecidability? - I concentrated on OWL and now I am just wondering what to think about WSML.

regards

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Andrea Proli
Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Jänner 2006 22:07
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: [protege-owl] Re: AW: Re: owl:class or rdfs:class


Hi Chris,
OWL Full is definetely known to be undecidable.
Indeed, OWL-DL is still very close to the undecidability boundary, and  
anything which is added to OWL-DL in order to make it more expressive  
(i.e. more kind of axiom types and/or class constructors) is likely to be  
a source of undecidability. For example, one source of undecidability is  
the harmful combination of transitive properties and non-simple roles.  
OWL-DL is mapped to a very expressive description logic usually referred  
to as SHOIN(D). Apart from allowing classes to be interpreted as instances  
of other classes, OWL-Full is a superset of the SHIN+ description logics,  
which is shown to be undecidable in

Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler, and Stephan Tobies. Practical reasoning for  
expressive
description logics. In Harald Ganzinger, David McAllester, and Andrei Voronkov, editors, Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Logic for Programming  
and Automated
Reasoning (LPAR'99), number 1705 in Lecture Notes in Artificial  
Intelligence,
pages 161?180. Springer, 1999.

by reduction of the domino problem. You can find many other great papers  
 from the same authors about complexiy of reasoning in very expressive DLs,  
and also I suggest you to read some material from Calvanese, De Giacomo,  
Lenzerini, etc if you need to know more on this topic.

I wish to post as soon as possible some observations about the usefulness  
or uselessness of OWL-Full and the expressivity/tractability tradeoff in  
the Semantic Web context, as I think a few crucial issues need to be  
carefully investigated; or, in case someone already did that, I hope (s)he  
will reply (or perhaps anticipate questions with some discussion), since  
that would be a great chance for me to have an answer for some terrible  
doubts :-) I'm enjoying more and more every day collecting opinions and  
knowledge from such skilled people around this mailing list. Thank you a lot, best

Andrea

In data Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:54 +0100, Chris Menzel <[hidden email]>  
ha scritto:

> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:51:21PM +0100, Andrea Proli wrote:
>> Hi Klaus,
>> there are 3 different versions of OWL, with increasingly higher
>> expressive
>> power. Each version is a semantic extension of a different subset of  
>> RDFS.
>> OWL-Full, the most expressive (though undecidable) flavor,
>
> Is OWL Full known to be undecidable, or simply not known to be
> decidable?  My quite possibly flawed understanding is that the
> increased expressiveness of OWL Full -- notably, the ability to treat
> classes as instances and the lifting of transitivity restrictions on
> complex properties -- breaks the usual proofs of decidability for OWL
> DL, but I didn't think Full had been shown positively undecidable.  
> Corrections and/or references appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: appletGUI_for_OWL_Server?

Nick Drummond
In reply to this post by Ronnie Valkky
Ronnie,

There is currently a small amount of work going on with WebProtege [1].
OWL support may not be a priority however (unless you would like an
interesting project).
Protege multi user mode [2] is also available - I am not sure about the
status of OWL support.

Nick

[1] http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WebProtege
[2] http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/multiuser/index.html

Ronnie Valkky wrote:

>Hi,
>
>is it possible & does it make sense to build java applet which would offer
>client based GUI
>to access OWL KB and reasoners in server ?
>
>could ProtegeOWL locate in server ?
>
>any known activities and projects ?
>
>thanks in advance
>Ronnie
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe go to 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

mobileGUI

Ronnie Valkky
Thanks Nick about the links you sent !

Do you know is anybody developing mobile GUI for Protege OQL
i.e. a user could use a smart mobile phone based on Symbian (see
http://www.symbian.com/ )
to send for example Dig queries to a Reasoner in a mobile server ?

Protege OWL has been written in Java sdk-1_5, how portable is the code to
mobile Java SDK
for Symbian and is somebody doint it/done it ?

Cheers
Ronnie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Drummond" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: appletGUI_for_OWL_Server?


> Ronnie,
>
> There is currently a small amount of work going on with WebProtege [1].
> OWL support may not be a priority however (unless you would like an
> interesting project).
> Protege multi user mode [2] is also available - I am not sure about the
> status of OWL support.
>
> Nick
>
> [1] http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WebProtege
> [2] http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/multiuser/index.html
>
> Ronnie Valkky wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >is it possible & does it make sense to build java applet which would
offer

> >client based GUI
> >to access OWL KB and reasoners in server ?
> >
> >could ProtegeOWL locate in server ?
> >
> >any known activities and projects ?
> >
> >thanks in advance
> >Ronnie
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe go to 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
>
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

12