one-to-one relations

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

one-to-one relations

Marcelino Borges
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 

_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Csongor Nyulas
Administrator
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor

On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


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


_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Varanka, Dalia
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


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


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




--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA

Tel. 573.308.3897

_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Marcelino Borges
I think that I have found a simpler solution.
I think that all that is needed is to assign the relation "R", from A to B, as "functional" and "inverse functional". Am I right?

2017-03-13 17:45 GMT-03:00 Varanka, Dalia <[hidden email]>:
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


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


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




--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA

Tel. <a href="tel:(573)%20308-3897" value="+15733083897" target="_blank">573.308.3897

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



_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Csongor Nyulas
Administrator
In reply to this post by Varanka, Dalia
This does not close the OWA.
It just says that any instance of class A has a relation along the property R to one and only one instance of B, and vice-versa.
This is what I read you want from your question.

From what you said, I don't think you need to make those subclass axioms necessary and sufficient.

Csongor

On 03/13/2017 01:45 PM, Varanka, Dalia wrote:
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA
Tel. 573.308.3897
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Marcelino Borges
Hi Csongor.

Making the relation R, from A to B, functional and inverse functional has the same effect of your approach? What are the implications of the two approaches? What the difference?

Best regards.

2017-03-13 17:56 GMT-03:00 Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]>:
This does not close the OWA.
It just says that any instance of class A has a relation along the property R to one and only one instance of B, and vice-versa.
This is what I read you want from your question.

From what you said, I don't think you need to make those subclass axioms necessary and sufficient.

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:45 PM, Varanka, Dalia wrote:
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA
Tel. <a href="tel:(573)%20308-3897" value="+15733083897" target="_blank">573.308.3897
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

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



_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Csongor Nyulas
Administrator
In reply to this post by Marcelino Borges
That would work as well, but it has a slightly different meaning than what I proposed. It may very well be exactly what Dalia wants, though.

The equivalent of what I said earlier, using functional properties, would be:
    Make R functional
    A subClassOf: R some B
    B subClassOf: R some A

Csongor

On 03/13/2017 01:53 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
I think that I have found a simpler solution.
I think that all that is needed is to assign the relation "R", from A to B, as "functional" and "inverse functional". Am I right?

2017-03-13 17:45 GMT-03:00 Varanka, Dalia <[hidden email]>:
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA
Tel. <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28573%29%20308-3897" value="+15733083897" target="_blank">573.308.3897
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Csongor Nyulas
Administrator
In reply to this post by Marcelino Borges
I have partially responded to these question a few minutes ago, as a response to your previous email.

Regarding the differences:
Setting the domain and range of R to A respectively B, it says that if your ontology contains an axiom "i1 R i2" than you can infer that i1 is of type A and i2 is of type B. It does not say that any instance of A must have a relationship R to another instance that is of type B.
Making the property R functional would say that if there are two axioms "i1 R i2" and "i1 R i3", then i2 and i3 are the same.
Making the property R inverse functional would say that if there are two axioms "i1 R i3" and "i2 R i3" then i1 and i2 are the same.
using the subclass axiom with "exactly 1" property restriction says the same things, but in the context of class A, not in general.

I think I have made a mistake in my earlier response, though. I just realized that based on the original poster's (OP) question B is not required to have a relation to A. So, instead of
    B subClassOf: (R exactly 1 A)
I should have written:
    B subClassOf: (inverse R exactly 1 A)

My the second way of modelling correctly would be this:
    Make R functional and inverse functional
    A subClassOf: (R some B)


Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:59 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi Csongor.

Making the relation R, from A to B, functional and inverse functional has the same effect of your approach? What are the implications of the two approaches? What the difference?

Best regards.

2017-03-13 17:56 GMT-03:00 Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]>:
This does not close the OWA.
It just says that any instance of class A has a relation along the property R to one and only one instance of B, and vice-versa.
This is what I read you want from your question.

From what you said, I don't think you need to make those subclass axioms necessary and sufficient.

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:45 PM, Varanka, Dalia wrote:
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA
Tel. <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28573%29%20308-3897" value="+15733083897" target="_blank">573.308.3897
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Lorenz B.
Guys, don't forget that what you're discussing here are NOT restrictions. It's just used for inference. This is a big difference!
I have partially responded to these question a few minutes ago, as a response to your previous email.

Regarding the differences:
Setting the domain and range of R to A respectively B, it says that if your ontology contains an axiom "i1 R i2" than you can infer that i1 is of type A and i2 is of type B. It does not say that any instance of A must have a relationship R to another instance that is of type B.
Making the property R functional would say that if there are two axioms "i1 R i2" and "i1 R i3", then i2 and i3 are the same.
Making the property R inverse functional would say that if there are two axioms "i1 R i3" and "i2 R i3" then i1 and i2 are the same.
using the subclass axiom with "exactly 1" property restriction says the same things, but in the context of class A, not in general.

I think I have made a mistake in my earlier response, though. I just realized that based on the original poster's (OP) question B is not required to have a relation to A. So, instead of
    B subClassOf: (R exactly 1 A)
I should have written:
    B subClassOf: (inverse R exactly 1 A)

My the second way of modelling correctly would be this:
    Make R functional and inverse functional
    A subClassOf: (R some B)


Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:59 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi Csongor.

Making the relation R, from A to B, functional and inverse functional has the same effect of your approach? What are the implications of the two approaches? What the difference?

Best regards.

2017-03-13 17:56 GMT-03:00 Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]>:
This does not close the OWA.
It just says that any instance of class A has a relation along the property R to one and only one instance of B, and vice-versa.
This is what I read you want from your question.

From what you said, I don't think you need to make those subclass axioms necessary and sufficient.

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:45 PM, Varanka, Dalia wrote:
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA
Tel. <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28573%29%20308-3897" value="+15733083897" target="_blank">573.308.3897
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
-- 
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: one-to-one relations

Marcelino Borges
Can you provide more details, Lorenz?
What is the difference between both, in your point of view?

Best regards.

2017-03-14 4:08 GMT-03:00 Lorenz B. <[hidden email]>:
Guys, don't forget that what you're discussing here are NOT restrictions. It's just used for inference. This is a big difference!

I have partially responded to these question a few minutes ago, as a response to your previous email.

Regarding the differences:
Setting the domain and range of R to A respectively B, it says that if your ontology contains an axiom "i1 R i2" than you can infer that i1 is of type A and i2 is of type B. It does not say that any instance of A must have a relationship R to another instance that is of type B.
Making the property R functional would say that if there are two axioms "i1 R i2" and "i1 R i3", then i2 and i3 are the same.
Making the property R inverse functional would say that if there are two axioms "i1 R i3" and "i2 R i3" then i1 and i2 are the same.
using the subclass axiom with "exactly 1" property restriction says the same things, but in the context of class A, not in general.

I think I have made a mistake in my earlier response, though. I just realized that based on the original poster's (OP) question B is not required to have a relation to A. So, instead of
    B subClassOf: (R exactly 1 A)
I should have written:
    B subClassOf: (inverse R exactly 1 A)

My the second way of modelling correctly would be this:
    Make R functional and inverse functional
    A subClassOf: (R some B)


Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:59 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi Csongor.

Making the relation R, from A to B, functional and inverse functional has the same effect of your approach? What are the implications of the two approaches? What the difference?

Best regards.

2017-03-13 17:56 GMT-03:00 Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]>:
This does not close the OWA.
It just says that any instance of class A has a relation along the property R to one and only one instance of B, and vice-versa.
This is what I read you want from your question.

From what you said, I don't think you need to make those subclass axioms necessary and sufficient.

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:45 PM, Varanka, Dalia wrote:
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA
Tel. <a href="tel:%28573%29%20308-3897" value="+15733083897" target="_blank">573.308.3897
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
-- 
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



_______________________________________________
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: one-to-one relations

Lorenz B.
What I mean is that an axioms like

A SubClassOf ( (p some B) and (r exactly 1 C) )

does not ensure that any instance x of A
* has explicitly properties p and s in the ontology
* has only properties p and s and not something like e.g. a property t
Both things follow from the Open World Assumption.

Moreover, if there are r(x, y1) and r(x, y2) it follows y1 = y2, i.e. it will be inferred that y1 and y2 are the same individual (if r is an object property)
And y1 (resp. y2) will be of type C, even if this was not stated in your ontology explicitly.

Can you provide more details, Lorenz?
What is the difference between both, in your point of view?

Best regards.

2017-03-14 4:08 GMT-03:00 Lorenz B. <[hidden email]>:
Guys, don't forget that what you're discussing here are NOT restrictions. It's just used for inference. This is a big difference!

I have partially responded to these question a few minutes ago, as a response to your previous email.

Regarding the differences:
Setting the domain and range of R to A respectively B, it says that if your ontology contains an axiom "i1 R i2" than you can infer that i1 is of type A and i2 is of type B. It does not say that any instance of A must have a relationship R to another instance that is of type B.
Making the property R functional would say that if there are two axioms "i1 R i2" and "i1 R i3", then i2 and i3 are the same.
Making the property R inverse functional would say that if there are two axioms "i1 R i3" and "i2 R i3" then i1 and i2 are the same.
using the subclass axiom with "exactly 1" property restriction says the same things, but in the context of class A, not in general.

I think I have made a mistake in my earlier response, though. I just realized that based on the original poster's (OP) question B is not required to have a relation to A. So, instead of
    B subClassOf: (R exactly 1 A)
I should have written:
    B subClassOf: (inverse R exactly 1 A)

My the second way of modelling correctly would be this:
    Make R functional and inverse functional
    A subClassOf: (R some B)


Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:59 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi Csongor.

Making the relation R, from A to B, functional and inverse functional has the same effect of your approach? What are the implications of the two approaches? What the difference?

Best regards.

2017-03-13 17:56 GMT-03:00 Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]>:
This does not close the OWA.
It just says that any instance of class A has a relation along the property R to one and only one instance of B, and vice-versa.
This is what I read you want from your question.

From what you said, I don't think you need to make those subclass axioms necessary and sufficient.

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:45 PM, Varanka, Dalia wrote:
Csongor, could you explain a little more, please.
You wrote:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Is this because it closes the OWA?  Creates a necessary and sufficient condition?

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Csongor Nyulas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Add these two axioms:
    A subClassOf (R exactly 1 B)
    B subClassOf (R exactly 1 A)

Csongor


On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, Marcelino Borges wrote:
Hi.

What is the best way of representing one-to-one relations in my ontology using Protege?

Consider, for example, the classes A and B and a Relation R between A and B. I would like to ensure that it relates only one A to one B and nothing else. My first approach was to develop two functional relations:
-R1, from A to B.
-R2, from B to A.

Is there any better way to do this?

Best regards. 


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
Dalia Varanka
U.S. Geological Survey
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, MO 65401 USA
Tel. <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28573%29%20308-3897" value="+15733083897" target="_blank">573.308.3897
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
-- 
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
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
-- 
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
Loading...