defining SimpleEvent

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

defining SimpleEvent

Alexander Nakhimovsky
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?
2. I don't know how to create the second definition via the Protege
interface. Would I need to use Manchester syntax?

Thank you for your help.

em:CompoundEvent rdf:type owl:Class ;
                 owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
                                       owl:onProperty em:hasSubEvent ;
                                       owl:someValuesFrom em:Event
                                     ] ;

                 rdfs:subClassOf em:Event .

# definition (1)
em:SimpleEvent rdf:type owl:Class ;

               rdfs:label "SimpleEvent" ;
               rdfs:subClassOf em:Event ,
                               [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
                                 owl:onProperty em:hasSubEvent ;
                                 owl:onClass em:Event ;
                                 owl:qualifiedCardinality
"0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
                               ] ;
               rdfs:comment "An event that has no sub-events within
the granularity of the current description." .

# definition (2)
em:SimpleEvent rdf:type owl:Class ;

               owl:equivalentClass
                      [ a owl:Class;
                        owl:intersectionOf (em:Event,
                                                         [ a
owl:Class; owl:complementOf em:CompoundEvent ] ) ]  .


--
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

Timothy Redmond

To edit this in Protege you would have to use the Manchester OWL
syntax.  There are pages describing this syntax here [1] (this is what
you want) and here [2] (this is more precise).

I have attached an ontology with both definitions.

-Timothy



[1]http://www.co-ode.org/resources/reference/manchester_syntax/
[2]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-owl2-manchester-syntax-20091027/


On 07/25/2011 01:37 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?
> 2. I don't know how to create the second definition via the Protege
> interface. Would I need to use Manchester syntax?
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> em:CompoundEvent rdf:type owl:Class ;
>                   owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
>                                         owl:onProperty em:hasSubEvent ;
>                                         owl:someValuesFrom em:Event
>                                       ] ;
>
>                   rdfs:subClassOf em:Event .
>
> # definition (1)
> em:SimpleEvent rdf:type owl:Class ;
>
>                 rdfs:label "SimpleEvent" ;
>                 rdfs:subClassOf em:Event ,
>                                 [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
>                                   owl:onProperty em:hasSubEvent ;
>                                   owl:onClass em:Event ;
>                                   owl:qualifiedCardinality
> "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
>                                 ] ;
>                 rdfs:comment "An event that has no sub-events within
> the granularity of the current description." .
>
> # definition (2)
> em:SimpleEvent rdf:type owl:Class ;
>
>                 owl:equivalentClass
>                        [ a owl:Class;
>                          owl:intersectionOf (em:Event,
>                                                           [ a
> owl:Class; owl:complementOf em:CompoundEvent ] ) ]  .
>
>

_______________________________________________
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

Event.owl (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: defining SimpleEvent

Thomas Russ
In reply to this post by Alexander Nakhimovsky

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

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03