Quantcast

Re: "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class. (Samson Tu)

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

Re: "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class. (Samson Tu)

mpuebla
Dear Samson Tu:

Thanks for answering, however, do not you know a way to specify it in the ontology without using reasoners?

I ask because in my case, the size of my ontology does not allow me to make use of the reasoners. The reasoning skills I have to develop myself, adjusted to my particular needs. For this reason, I need a way to translate that knowledge into the ontology so that I can use it later.

Best regards.



Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:46:03 -0700
From: Samson Tu <[hidden email]>
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [protege-user] "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data
        properties of a class.
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


> On May 17, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Manuel Enrique Puebla Martinez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have a modeling doubt.
>
> I want to specify that a class in my ontology has a set of data properties whose values are not repeated only for that class.
>
> "DisjointDataProperties allows it to be asserted that several data properties are pairwise incompatible (exclusive)." However, this will be true for all classes of my ontology that use the data properties specified as disjoint. I need the restriction to apply only to one class and not all. How can I model this in OWL2?
>

One possibility is to write a rule: ExampleClass(?i), p1(?i, ?v), p2(?i, ?v) -> owl:Nothing(?i), where p1 and p2 have been defined as data properties.

Interestingly, different reasoners behave differently when there is an instance that have a common value for the two properties. Pellet throws an inconsistent ontology error. Hermit displays a dialog box and offers to give explanation for the inconsistent ontology. FaCT++ shows nothing, but a DL query of ExampleClass shows that it is a subclass of owl:Nothing.

With best regards,
Samson

--
Samson Tu                                                      email: [hidden email]
Senior Research Engineer                              web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
Center for Biomedical Informatics Research phone: 1-650-725-3391
Stanford University                                          fax: 1-650-725-7944

La @universidad_uci es Fidel. Los jóvenes no fallaremos.
#HastaSiempreComandante
#HastalaVictoriaSiempre
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class. (Samson Tu)

samsontu

On May 19, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Manuel Enrique Puebla Martinez <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Samson Tu:

Thanks for answering, however, do not you know a way to specify it in the ontology without using reasoners?

I ask because in my case, the size of my ontology does not allow me to make use of the reasoners. The reasoning skills I have to develop myself, adjusted to my particular needs. For this reason, I need a way to translate that knowledge into the ontology so that I can use it later.



My suggested representation was 

ExampleClass(?i), p1(?i, ?v), p2(?i, ?v) -> owl:Nothing(?i),

Whether you run the reasoner or not is up to you. I don’t understand what kind of "representation without using reasoner” you are looking for.

With best regards,
Samson




Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:46:03 -0700
From: Samson Tu <[hidden email]>
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
<[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [protege-user] "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data
properties of a class.
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


On May 17, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Manuel Enrique Puebla Martinez <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have a modeling doubt.

I want to specify that a class in my ontology has a set of data properties whose values are not repeated only for that class.

"DisjointDataProperties allows it to be asserted that several data properties are pairwise incompatible (exclusive)." However, this will be true for all classes of my ontology that use the data properties specified as disjoint. I need the restriction to apply only to one class and not all. How can I model this in OWL2?


One possibility is to write a rule: ExampleClass(?i), p1(?i, ?v), p2(?i, ?v) -> owl:Nothing(?i), where p1 and p2 have been defined as data properties.

Interestingly, different reasoners behave differently when there is an instance that have a common value for the two properties. Pellet throws an inconsistent ontology error. Hermit displays a dialog box and offers to give explanation for the inconsistent ontology. FaCT++ shows nothing, but a DL query of ExampleClass shows that it is a subclass of owl:Nothing.

With best regards,
Samson

--
Samson Tu                                                      email: [hidden email]
Senior Research Engineer                              web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
Center for Biomedical Informatics Research phone: 1-650-725-3391
Stanford University                                          fax: 1-650-725-7944

La @universidad_uci es Fidel. Los jóvenes no fallaremos.
#HastaSiempreComandante
#HastalaVictoriaSiempre
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

-- 
Samson Tu                                                      email: [hidden email]
Senior Research Engineer                              web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
Center for Biomedical Informatics Research  phone: 1-650-725-3391
Stanford University                                          fax: 1-650-725-7944




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

Re: "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class. (Samson Tu)

Lorenz B.
In reply to this post by mpuebla
If you don't use a reasoner, how would any other OWL axiom help you to
model this?
I understand that you want to define a restriction, but without a
reasoner you can use any encoding of the restriction as long as you
resp. your application later on will handle this.

> Dear Samson Tu:
>
> Thanks for answering, however, do not you know a way to specify it in the ontology without using reasoners?
>
> I ask because in my case, the size of my ontology does not allow me to make use of the reasoners. The reasoning skills I have to develop myself, adjusted to my particular needs. For this reason, I need a way to translate that knowledge into the ontology so that I can use it later.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:46:03 -0700
> From: Samson Tu <[hidden email]>
> To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [protege-user] "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data
> properties of a class.
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>> On May 17, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Manuel Enrique Puebla Martinez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I have a modeling doubt.
>>
>> I want to specify that a class in my ontology has a set of data properties whose values are not repeated only for that class.
>>
>> "DisjointDataProperties allows it to be asserted that several data properties are pairwise incompatible (exclusive)." However, this will be true for all classes of my ontology that use the data properties specified as disjoint. I need the restriction to apply only to one class and not all. How can I model this in OWL2?
>>
> One possibility is to write a rule: ExampleClass(?i), p1(?i, ?v), p2(?i, ?v) -> owl:Nothing(?i), where p1 and p2 have been defined as data properties.
>
> Interestingly, different reasoners behave differently when there is an instance that have a common value for the two properties. Pellet throws an inconsistent ontology error. Hermit displays a dialog box and offers to give explanation for the inconsistent ontology. FaCT++ shows nothing, but a DL query of ExampleClass shows that it is a subclass of owl:Nothing.
>
> With best regards,
> Samson
>
--
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

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

Re: "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class. (Samson Tu)

mpuebla
In reply to this post by mpuebla

Thanks to "Samson Tu" and "Lorenz B.", they are absolutely right. I thought that the rules were obligatorily linked to the reasoners but now I realize that it is not so. Thanks to your comments.

The rules are in ontology, like the aximomas, of me depend on being able to exploit them without the use of a reasoner. What happens is that I have never worked with rules since OWLAPI, I suppose that OWLAPI has mechanisms to check compliance with the rules without the need to use a reasoner ?, any suggestions?

The problem is that the reasoners try to take full advantage of ontologies and with large ontologies that do not work. On the contrary, when I develop my reasoning skills I am not so ambitious (less general), I focus on what I need.

Best Regards, Manuel Puebla.



Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:42:27 -0700
From: Samson Tu <[hidden email]>
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [protege-user] "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data
        properties of a class. (Samson Tu)
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


> On May 19, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Manuel Enrique Puebla Martinez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear Samson Tu:
>
> Thanks for answering, however, do not you know a way to specify it in the ontology without using reasoners?
>
> I ask because in my case, the size of my ontology does not allow me to make use of the reasoners. The reasoning skills I have to develop myself, adjusted to my particular needs. For this reason, I need a way to translate that knowledge into the ontology so that I can use it later.
>
>

My suggested representation was

> ExampleClass(?i), p1(?i, ?v), p2(?i, ?v) -> owl:Nothing(?i),

Whether you run the reasoner or not is up to you. I don?t understand what kind of "representation without using reasoner? you are looking for.

With best regards,
Samson
 

Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 09:02:55 +0200
From: "Lorenz B." <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [protege-user] "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data
        properties of a class. (Samson Tu)
Message-ID:
        <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

If you don't use a reasoner, how would any other OWL axiom help you to
model this?
I understand that you want to define a restriction, but without a
reasoner you can use any encoding of the restriction as long as you
resp. your application later on will handle this.

> Dear Samson Tu:
>
> Thanks for answering, however, do not you know a way to specify it in the ontology without using reasoners?
>
> I ask because in my case, the size of my ontology does not allow me to make use of the reasoners. The reasoning skills I have to develop myself, adjusted to my particular needs. For this reason, I need a way to translate that knowledge into the ontology so that I can use it later.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:46:03 -0700
> From: Samson Tu <[hidden email]>
> To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [protege-user] "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data
> properties of a class.
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>> On May 17, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Manuel Enrique Puebla Martinez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I have a modeling doubt.
>>
>> I want to specify that a class in my ontology has a set of data properties whose values are not repeated only for that class.
>>
>> "DisjointDataProperties allows it to be asserted that several data properties are pairwise incompatible (exclusive)." However, this will be true for all classes of my ontology that use the data properties specified as disjoint. I need the restriction to apply only to one class and not all. How can I model this in OWL2?
>>
> One possibility is to write a rule: ExampleClass(?i), p1(?i, ?v), p2(?i, ?v) -> owl:Nothing(?i), where p1 and p2 have been defined as data properties.
>
> Interestingly, different reasoners behave differently when there is an instance that have a common value for the two properties. Pellet throws an inconsistent ontology error. Hermit displays a dialog box and offers to give explanation for the inconsistent ontology. FaCT++ shows nothing, but a DL query of ExampleClass shows that it is a subclass of owl:Nothing.
>
> With best regards,
> Samson
>
--
Lorenz B?hmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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


------------------------------

End of protege-user Digest, Vol 40, Issue 20
********************************************
La @universidad_uci es Fidel. Los jóvenes no fallaremos.
#HastaSiempreComandante
#HastalaVictoriaSiempre
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class. (Samson Tu)

samsontu

On May 20, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Manuel Enrique Puebla Martinez <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
The rules are in ontology, like the aximomas, of me depend on being able to exploit them without the use of a reasoner. What happens is that I have never worked with rules since OWLAPI, I suppose that OWLAPI has mechanisms to check compliance with the rules without the need to use a reasoner ?, any suggestions?

Using OWLAPI to “Check compliance with rules” means running reasoner. You may be able to use the reasoner that comes with SWRLTab to run rules without  invoking a DL reasoner. Just be aware that you may get incomplete results. 


The problem is that the reasoners try to take full advantage of ontologies and with large ontologies that do not work. On the contrary, when I develop my reasoning skills I am not so ambitious (less general), I focus on what I need.


Check to see if your ontology can be made to satisfy the requirements of OWL 2 EL profile. EL reasoners are capable of handling huge ontologies.

With best regards,
Samson


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