allvaluesfrom without somevaluesfrom

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

allvaluesfrom without somevaluesfrom

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

In http://130.88.198.11/tutorials/protegeowltutorial/resources/ProtegeOWLTutorialP4_v1_3.pdf

Is says on p99:

 

“It is worth noting that is particularly unusual (and probably an error), if when describing a class, a

universal restriction along a given property is used without using a ‘corresponding’ existential restriction

along the same property. In the above example, if we had only used the universal restriction hasTopping

Mozzarella, then we would have described the set of individuals that only participate in the hasTopping

relationship with members of the class Mozzarella, and also those individuals that do not participate in

any hasTopping relationships – probably a mistake.”

 

Can someone explain why this would be unusual?

I always interpreted:

allValuesFrom: IF the individual participate in a property that there is always a certain range

someValuesFrom: for the individual there always exist at least one property with a certain range

 

so they would be complementary but also valid in their own right… (ie they do not necc. come together suggesting an error when they don’t…).

 

so..I would think in particular that it makes perfect sense to only have a local allValuesFrom clause for specific classes (say for modelling instead of a global, less flexible  range clause).

 

thx Michel

 

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms
Sr. Research Scientist
Structural Reliability

T +31 (0)88 866 31 07
M +31 (0)63 038 12 20
[hidden email]

Location

 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

 


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

Re: allvaluesfrom without somevaluesfrom

Thomas Schneider-2
Hi Michel and Matthew (as the author of the tutorial),

I think that "error" and "mistake" in the cited paragraph may be too strict because they suggest "logical error". Logically, they are always admissible each by itself, as you observe. However, what is probably meant in the tutorial is that, from a modeling perspective, it is questionable whether "only" (aka "allvaluesfrom" or "forall") by itself is useful enough, precisely because an individual without any r-successors is always an instance of "r only X", for any X. So it while it is _correct_ to use "only" when defining a vegetarian pizza as

"hasTopping only VegetableTopping",

it seems not _sufficient_ from an intuitive point of view -- because it admits pathological vegetarian pizzas without toppings. The "corresponding" existential restriction mentioned in the paragraph would be found in the definition of the superclass Pizza though:

Pizza = [...] and hasTopping some Thing
VegetarianPizza = Pizza and hasTopping only VegetableTopping

That's how I would model it (says a theoretician with next-to-zero modeling experience, so do take my advice with a grain of salt and await further responses ;-)).

Cheers

Thomas

On 26.06.2014, at 14:54, "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In http://130.88.198.11/tutorials/protegeowltutorial/resources/ProtegeOWLTutorialP4_v1_3.pdf
> Is says on p99:
>  
> “It is worth noting that is particularly unusual (and probably an error), if when describing a class, a
> universal restriction along a given property is used without using a ‘corresponding’ existential restriction
> along the same property. In the above example, if we had only used the universal restriction ∀ hasTopping
> Mozzarella, then we would have described the set of individuals that only participate in the hasTopping
> relationship with members of the class Mozzarella, and also those individuals that do not participate in
> any hasTopping relationships – probably a mistake.”
>  
> Can someone explain why this would be unusual?
> I always interpreted:
> allValuesFrom: IF the individual participate in a property that there is always a certain range
> someValuesFrom: for the individual there always exist at least one property with a certain range
>  
> so they would be complementary but also valid in their own right… (ie they do not necc. come together suggesting an error when they don’t…).
>  
> so..I would think in particular that it makes perfect sense to only have a local allValuesFrom clause for specific classes (say for modelling instead of a global, less flexible  range clause).
>  
> thx Michel
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms
> Sr. Research Scientist
> Structural Reliability
> T +31 (0)88 866 31 07
> M +31 (0)63 038 12 20
> E [hidden email]
> Location
>
>  
> <image001.gif>
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> protege-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas Schneider
Universität Bremen, FB 03
Postfach 330440
28334 Bremen
Germany
+49 421 218-64432
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
For visits: Cartesium, Room 2.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wike (vb.)
To rip a sticky piece of plaster off your skin as fast as possible in the hope that it will (a) show how brave you are and (b) not hurt.

Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff


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

signature.asc (465 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: allvaluesfrom without somevaluesfrom

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
Hi Thomas,

Thx! Quite clear.

In this example of the vegetarian pizza the allvaluesfrom seems a necessary but not yet sufficient condition for the semantics of a Vegetarian Pizza indeed.
Although you could interpret: a pizza without topings at all is also vegetarian (at least there is no meat toping...).

I feel (or is it hope?) there are other examples where having only allvaluesfrom seems more natural...
(like just optional attributes that are not really "defining" the class)
I'll think about it, thx for the input!

Gr Michel

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms
Sr. Research Scientist
Structural Reliability
T +31 (0)88 866 31 07
M +31 (0)63 038 12 20
E [hidden email]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

-----Original Message-----
From: protege-user [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Schneider
Sent: donderdag 26 juni 2014 16:02
To: User support for WebProtege and Protege Desktop
Subject: Re: [protege-user] allvaluesfrom without somevaluesfrom

Hi Michel and Matthew (as the author of the tutorial),

I think that "error" and "mistake" in the cited paragraph may be too strict because they suggest "logical error". Logically, they are always admissible each by itself, as you observe. However, what is probably meant in the tutorial is that, from a modeling perspective, it is questionable whether "only" (aka "allvaluesfrom" or "forall") by itself is useful enough, precisely because an individual without any r-successors is always an instance of "r only X", for any X. So it while it is _correct_ to use "only" when defining a vegetarian pizza as

"hasTopping only VegetableTopping",

it seems not _sufficient_ from an intuitive point of view -- because it admits pathological vegetarian pizzas without toppings. The "corresponding" existential restriction mentioned in the paragraph would be found in the definition of the superclass Pizza though:

Pizza = [...] and hasTopping some Thing
VegetarianPizza = Pizza and hasTopping only VegetableTopping

That's how I would model it (says a theoretician with next-to-zero modeling experience, so do take my advice with a grain of salt and await further responses ;-)).

Cheers

Thomas

On 26.06.2014, at 14:54, "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In
> http://130.88.198.11/tutorials/protegeowltutorial/resources/ProtegeOWL
> TutorialP4_v1_3.pdf
> Is says on p99:
>  
> “It is worth noting that is particularly unusual (and probably an
> error), if when describing a class, a universal restriction along a
> given property is used without using a ‘corresponding’ existential
> restriction along the same property. In the above example, if we had
> only used the universal restriction ∀ hasTopping Mozzarella, then we
> would have described the set of individuals that only participate in the hasTopping relationship with members of the class Mozzarella, and also those individuals that do not participate in any hasTopping relationships – probably a mistake.”
>  
> Can someone explain why this would be unusual?
> I always interpreted:
> allValuesFrom: IF the individual participate in a property that there
> is always a certain range
> someValuesFrom: for the individual there always exist at least one
> property with a certain range
>  
> so they would be complementary but also valid in their own right… (ie they do not necc. come together suggesting an error when they don’t…).
>  
> so..I would think in particular that it makes perfect sense to only have a local allValuesFrom clause for specific classes (say for modelling instead of a global, less flexible  range clause).
>  
> thx Michel
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms
> Sr. Research Scientist
> Structural Reliability
> T +31 (0)88 866 31 07
> M +31 (0)63 038 12 20
> E [hidden email]
> Location
>
>  
> <image001.gif>
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> protege-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas Schneider
Universität Bremen, FB 03
Postfach 330440
28334 Bremen
Germany
+49 421 218-64432
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
For visits: Cartesium, Room 2.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wike (vb.)
To rip a sticky piece of plaster off your skin as fast as possible in the hope that it will (a) show how brave you are and (b) not hurt.

Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff

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