Reasoning in ontology

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

Reasoning in ontology

Fatma ELLOUZE
Hello everybody,

May I ask you what is the difference between reasoning with an ontology and reasoning without an ontology.
I would be very grateful if you could reply to my question.

Thanks in advance.
Best regards
Fatma

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reasoning in ontology

Matthew Horridge-2
Administrator
Hi Fatma,

Here’s one such difference…

If I have a class expression like

hasIngredient some (Butter and Sugar)

then this class expression alone is satisfiable.  

However, if I have an ontology O, which states that Butter and Sugar are disjoint then this class is unsatisfiable with respect to O.

Cheers,

Matthew

> On 24 May 2017, at 07:46, Fatma ELLOUZE <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> May I ask you what is the difference between reasoning with an ontology and
> reasoning without an ontology.
> I would be very grateful if you could reply to my question.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Best regards
> Fatma
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Reasoning-in-ontology-tp4668594.html
> Sent from the Protege Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> protege-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev

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

Re: Reasoning in ontology

Lorenz Buehmann
In reply to this post by Fatma ELLOUZE
Reasoning without an ontology then reason over which data? I'm a bit confused, what is in your opinion an ontology?

Hello everybody,

May I ask you what is the difference between reasoning with an ontology and
reasoning without an ontology.
I would be very grateful if you could reply to my question.

Thanks in advance.
Best regards
Fatma





--
View this message in context: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Reasoning-in-ontology-tp4668594.html
Sent from the Protege Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev

-- 
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

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

Re: Reasoning in ontology

Fatma ELLOUZE
Dear Mr. Lorenz,
Obviously, an ontology allows reasoning. However, I mean if I have to do only reasoning, is the ontology a necessity or I could just use a reasoner without ontology.

Indeed, my problem is that, in my research I used an ontology which is used only for reasoning. So I was criticized by its use because it serves only for reasoning.
Now, I want to add other things to my ontology (e.g., restriction) to make it useful.

Please, how can I convince that ontology is not only for reasoning on rules.

Thank you in advance for any help.
Best regads,
Fatma.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reasoning in ontology

Lorenz Buehmann
It's still not clear. An OWL reasoner always works on the axioms contained in an OWL ontology. On what would you run the reasoner without the ontology? That was my question.

Please give an example.

Dear Mr. Lorenz,
Obviously, an ontology allows reasoning. However, I mean if I have to do
only reasoning, is the ontology a necessity or I could just use a reasoner
without ontology. 

Indeed, my problem is that, in my research I used an ontology which is used
only for reasoning. So I was criticized by its use because it serves only
for reasoning.
Now, I want to add other things to my ontology (e.g., restriction) to make
it useful.

Please, how can I convince that ontology is not only for reasoning on rules.

Thank you in advance for any help.
Best regads,
Fatma.



--
View this message in context: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Reasoning-in-ontology-tp4668594p4668618.html
Sent from the Protege Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev

-- 
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

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

Re: Reasoning in ontology

Fatma ELLOUZE
Yes I understand you question. That 's why I say reasoner and not an OWL reasoner. For example, Knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) is a field of artificial intelligence (AI) that could not necessary use an ontology.
 Moreover,  inference engines are components in Expert Systems. These laters could also not use an ontology for resoning.

So, now I am in this situation.
Best regards
Fatma.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reasoning in ontology

Lorenz Buehmann
If you're not talking about OWL, then it's a totally different question.

And in that case the type of reasoning is also important. Inductive, deductive, abductive, ...

For example, a deductive reasoner usually takes some deduction rules + the data on which those rules will be applied. So it still remains unclear why you're asking such a question if you already know the answer.


Yes I understand you question. That 's why I say reasoner and not an OWL
reasoner. For example, Knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) is a
field of artificial intelligence (AI) that could not necessary use an
ontology.
 Moreover,  inference engines are components in Expert Systems. These laters
could also not use an ontology for resoning. 

So, now I am in this situation. 
Best regards
Fatma.



--
View this message in context: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Reasoning-in-ontology-tp4668594p4668622.html
Sent from the Protege Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev

-- 
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

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

Re: Reasoning in ontology

Fatma ELLOUZE
Yes I have the answer about that. That's why I asked about what kind of difference between these two approches?
In fact, I have to convince why I am using an ontology, in my context of work. My response was about reasoning. But now, I have found that this is not enough. That's why I am asking you about what can I add to my current ontology?

I am sorry if my question is not clear.

Happy to have a reply
Best regards,
Fatma
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reasoning in ontology

aseljamel
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
In reply to this post by Fatma ELLOUZE
Hello Fatma,

I think the question should be like this:


Why should the Semantic Web Technologies be used for Knowledge Representation?


Because, I believe, that ontology modelling and reasoning are part of Semantic Web Technologies. You can’t say Reasoning without Ontology in Semantic Web.


Yes, there are other approaches can be used for Knowledge Representation. They have no Ontology.


Thanks


Abdul 
 




From: Fatma ELLOUZE [via Protege Project] <[hidden email]>
To: aseljamel <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, 26 May 2017, 10:24
Subject: Re: Reasoning in ontology

Yes I understand you question. That 's why I say reasoner and not an OWL reasoner. For example, Knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) is a field of artificial intelligence (AI) that could not necessary use an ontology.
 Moreover,  inference engines are components in Expert Systems. These laters could also not use an ontology for resoning.

So, now I am in this situation.
Best regards
Fatma.


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Reasoning-in-ontology-tp4668594p4668622.html
To start a new topic under Protege Developer, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Protege Project, click here.
NAML