[protege-owl] FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'

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

[protege-owl] FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'

Paul Prueitt

Respectfully,

The reason why I feel that my posted message to the Protege forum is
appropriate is that the issue (see rejected message below) deals with how
properties are regarded by the ontology development interface .... in this
case the protege software.

The censorship is an act which takes an otherwise valid post and rejects
that post because a moderator makes a decision to not allow a line of
discussion which exposes a weakness to a view point ...  in this case the
viewpoint that subsumption relationships are the most import aspect of the
development of ontological modeling.

This it not consistant with some facts.  First that protege has been
developed larger with US taxpayer funding.  Second is that the concept of
scholarly discourse in the United States is dimenished by such censorship.
Third, because the notion of scholarship needs, some believe, a free and
active marketplace of expressed ideas.

The, some feel, over used subsumption relationships sets up the over use of
first order logics.  Many users of protege do not feel that excessive use of
subsumption and FOL is how they wish to use ontological constructions.  But
up to just recently, there is little choice but to use protege; often
because the use of protege is mandated by a US federal contract.  New
alternatives are coming available, such as Altova and Intellidimension.

In my use of Altova, the absence of confusion over how to do simple things
compares with the vast difficulties first time users experience in
attmepting to load files or define elements of ontology.  I have made the
point elsewhere that my difficulties in using protege (whether protege
frames or protege owl) stem from what I regard, as a scholar in this field,
as somewhat narrow and unnatural decisions made in the course of developing
the current software.  But, again, to be a scholar in this field I have to
be aware of how protege frmaes and protege owl works, and is regarded by the
community that uses or attempts to use this software.

In this post, I am asking some "why" questions.  Why would one select a
specific one of three uses of "property" (see the post copied below).  I
provide as context my task related to a OASIS standard.  I am looking for
expertise on this issue from members of the forum.  My right to make this
inquiry cannot be blocked by a moderator unless the moderator wishes to
bring into question the federal funding stream to Stanford.



If Protege declares itself to be deserving of federal funding as "the"
ontology editor of choice, then there cannot be a rejection of posting that
are talking about the use of Protege in a context that favors an OASIS
viewpoint over W3C viewpoint.

I respectfully request that a moderator not block my posts to either
protege-owl or protege because I am a leading researcher in this field and I
maintain that I have professional intentions to each of my posts.  I am an
American citizen.



Dr Paul S Prueitt
703-981-2676




-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prueitt [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:36 AM
To: Ted Hopper
Subject: RE: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'


Ted, I posted to the discussion list that I wanted to.  I did not post to be
censored

If I am censored that I will take this up with those who feel that there
should not be censorship in this forum.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Hopper [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:08 PM
To: Paul Prueitt
Subject: Fwd: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'


Hello Paul,

The nature of your message is more appropriate for posting to the
[hidden email] list.
Please post your message there.  If you currently not subscribed to this
list, you can browse to
http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html to do so.

Thanx,
Ted

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:41:34 %z (PST)
>From: Ecartis <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: [hidden email]
>To: [hidden email]
>X-ecartis-antiloop: crg-gw.Stanford.EDU
>Subject: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'
>
>This message was received for a list you are a moderator on, and
>was marked for moderation due to the following reason:
>Failed administrivia check on pattern '^[oO][wW][lL].*$'
>
>To approve this message and have it go out on the list, forward this to
>protege-discussion-repost@(No value set)
>
>If you wish to decline the post, change the 'apppost' below to 'delpost'.
>If you wish to edit the post, change it to 'modpost' and edit the message
>as needed - not all mail programs will work with modpost.
>
>DO NOT DELETE THE FOLLOWING LINE.  Ecartis needs it.
>// apppost 43E9767E:A51.1:cebgrtrqvfphffvba
>
> >From [hidden email] Tue Feb  7 20:41:30 2006
>Received: from harbor.safeport.com (harbor.safeport.com [209.31.154.12])
>         by crg-gw.Stanford.EDU (8.11.5/8.11.5) with SMTP id k184fTW02564
>         for <[hidden email]>; Tue, 7 Feb 2006
20:41:30 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from yourkkxx5rxwd9 (209-188-120-35.taosnet.com [209.188.120.35])
>         by harbor.safeport.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id
k184fFJp071129;

>         Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:41:20 -0500 (EST)
>         (envelope-from [hidden email])
>From: "Paul Prueitt" <[hidden email]>
>To: <[hidden email]>
>Subject: on properties
>Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:41:16 -0700
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
>Importance: Normal
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>
>
>in looking at
>
>owl:ObjectProperty
>owl:DatatypeProperty
>and
>rdf:Property
>
>I am trying to understand how to choose one of these in defining a property
>
>The task I am doing is to encode the SOA-IM (service oriented
>architecture-information model) as an RDF file.
>
>The SOA-IM has 38 "enitities" which I have made into "classes"  .  I wish
to

>have no subsumptions relationships, since each of these IM enitities is a
>data object related to a simple XML document.  There are in the OASIS
>standard the notion of class parents... but I wish to flatten the set of
>objects ...
>
>see attached rdf file
>
>
>
>2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
>
>This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
>
>2.1.1 Action
>
>A consequence of an event taking place.
>
>
>Attribute       Type    Description
>id      String256       Unique ID
>name    String256       Action's name
>description     String4000      Detailed description
>event   String256       Event which this action relates to
>reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
>type    String256       The type of the Action
>(Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>
>
>Associated with
>.       An Event where Event is the target object and association type is
>"IsActionOf"
>
>Parent: Event
>
>is the first object.
>
>**********************************
>
>My question is about whether the attributes should be
>
>
>owl:ObjectProperty
>owl:DatatypeProperty
>or
>rdf:Property
>
>
>advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is appreciated,
>greatly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
>-- Type: text/xml
>-- Size: 9k (9489 bytes)
>-- URL :
http://protege.stanford.edu/mail_archive/attachments/SOA-Enitities.rdf
>
>
>// eompost 43E9767E:A51.1:cebgrtrqvfphffvba

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ted Hopper, '84, MA '85
Administrative Associate
Stanford Medical Informatics
Medical School Office Building, Room X217
Stanford, CA
Voice: (650) 736-0728
Fax: (650) 725-7944
Mail Code: 5479
Web: http://www.smi.stanford.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'

Ronald Cornet
At 08:05 08-02-06 -0700, Paul Prueitt wrote:
>I respectfully request that a moderator not block my posts to either
>protege-owl or protege because I am a leading researcher in this field and I
>maintain that I have professional intentions to each of my posts.  I am an
>American citizen.

There is a simple if-then rule in play.
If [message contains the OWL] then it should not be directed to the
protege-discussion list but to protege-owl.

That is not a matter of censorship, but rather a great feature, in order to
get the right mails at the right mailing lists.
There are many among us, leading researcher or not, who mistakenly post to
the wrong list.

As the benefit is prevention of having to receive many
unwanted/inappropriate mails , and the cost is that occasionally a mail
gets blocked (NOT censored), the benefit largely outweighs the disadvantage.

I think it is unfair to accuse anyone of censorship because of the actual
content of the message, as this is definitely not the case.
It is a mere matter of great moderation, in which large efforts are being
invested. So thanks to Ted Hopper!

Ronald

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'

Paul S Prueitt


there are issues that cross the category of "protege-owl" or protege-frames.
I would prefer to allow the individual making the post to determine which
forum to post to.

there is similarities and differences related to the two group's focus.  My
question applied to both the owl side and the non owl side..





-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Ronald
Cornet
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:50 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'


At 08:05 08-02-06 -0700, Paul Prueitt wrote:
>I respectfully request that a moderator not block my posts to either
>protege-owl or protege because I am a leading researcher in this field and
I
>maintain that I have professional intentions to each of my posts.  I am an
>American citizen.

There is a simple if-then rule in play.
If [message contains the OWL] then it should not be directed to the
protege-discussion list but to protege-owl.

That is not a matter of censorship, but rather a great feature, in order to
get the right mails at the right mailing lists.
There are many among us, leading researcher or not, who mistakenly post to
the wrong list.

As the benefit is prevention of having to receive many
unwanted/inappropriate mails , and the cost is that occasionally a mail
gets blocked (NOT censored), the benefit largely outweighs the disadvantage.

I think it is unfair to accuse anyone of censorship because of the actual
content of the message, as this is definitely not the case.
It is a mere matter of great moderation, in which large efforts are being
invested. So thanks to Ted Hopper!

Ronald

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] RDF, OWL and Protege frames

Paul S Prueitt
In reply to this post by Ronald Cornet


my question is about a selection between a non OWL RDF "definition" of
"property" or the selection of one of two OWL defintions of property.

>My question is about whether the attributes should be
>
>
>owl:ObjectProperty
>owl:DatatypeProperty
>or
>rdf:Property
>
>
>advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is appreciated,
>greatly.

the context is in created a RDF (not OWL) ontology for the OASIS SOA-IM.

specifically of 38 data objects having the form:


********

>
>2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
>
>This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
>
>2.1.1 Action
>
>A consequence of an event taking place.
>
>
>Attribute       Type    Description
>id      String256       Unique ID
>name    String256       Action's name
>description     String4000      Detailed description
>event   String256       Event which this action relates to
>reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
>type    String256       The type of the Action
>(Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>
>
>Associated with
>.       An Event where Event is the target object and association type is
>"IsActionOf"
>
>Parent: Event
>
>is the first object.
>
>**********************************

So I initially addressed the question to the protege-discussion forum since
my goal was to develop a RDF ontology unless I could see why the owl type
property was better suited to modeling the SAO IM.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames

Doug Holmes
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ (6.2) and http://www.w3.org/TR/owl- 
guide/ (3.2 and 3.3)



On Feb 8, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Paul S Prueitt wrote:

>
>
> my question is about a selection between a non OWL RDF "definition" of
> "property" or the selection of one of two OWL defintions of property.
>
>> My question is about whether the attributes should be
>>
>>
>> owl:ObjectProperty
>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>> or
>> rdf:Property
>>
>>
>> advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is  
>> appreciated,
>> greatly.
>
> the context is in created a RDF (not OWL) ontology for the OASIS  
> SOA-IM.
>
> specifically of 38 data objects having the form:
>
>
> ********
>
>>
>> 2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
>>
>> This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
>>
>> 2.1.1 Action
>>
>> A consequence of an event taking place.
>>
>>
>> Attribute       Type    Description
>> id      String256       Unique ID
>> name    String256       Action's name
>> description     String4000      Detailed description
>> event   String256       Event which this action relates to
>> reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
>> type    String256       The type of the Action
>> (Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>>
>>
>> Associated with
>> .       An Event where Event is the target object and association  
>> type is
>> "IsActionOf"
>>
>> Parent: Event
>>
>> is the first object.
>>
>> **********************************
>
> So I initially addressed the question to the protege-discussion  
> forum since
> my goal was to develop a RDF ontology unless I could see why the  
> owl type
> property was better suited to modeling the SAO IM.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
> subscribe.html
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames

Andrea Proli-2
In reply to this post by Paul S Prueitt
Paul,
I need to point out some basic facts before answering your question. If  
you find them boring or complicated, go directly to the answer at the end  
of the post and proceed backwards until you get all of the motivations :)

Because of the way languages are layered in the Semantic Web tower, with  
RDF at the base, a set of statements cannot be labelled "a priori" as  
either an OWL document, an RDFS document, or an RDF document. A set of  
statements is just a set of statements. It is the way you use that  
document that defines whether you *interpret* your set of statements as  
either an OWL document, or as an RDFS document, or as an RDF document.  
Simply using resource names from the "owl" namespace does not implicitly  
imports into your document all of the entailments associated to that  
resource. I try to clarify.

RDF, RDFS and OWL define a set of "semantic conditions" attached to some  
resource names in their vocabulary, which drive the so-called "vocabulary  
entailment" (you can see the W3C RDF Semantics specification for details).  
For example, RDF defines the semantic conditions attached to resource  
names "rdf:type" and "rdf:Property" and so on, RDFS includes the semantic  
conditions of RDF and further defines the ones attached to resource names  
"rdfs:subclassOf", "rdfs:Class" and so on (so that more entailments are  
drawn than from the RDF semantic conditions only), while OWL includes the  
semantic conditions of both RDF and RDFS and adds those attached to  
resource names "owl:TransitiveProperty", "owl:inverseOf", and so on (I am  
actually omitting some details here).

Confusion can arise due to the fact that the RDF specification, apart from  
the semantic conditions attached to the RDF vocabulary, also defines the  
overall framework - I formalized this in a reply to a previous post of  
yours about axioms and theories.

Now, once you have a set of statements, its vocabulary (i.e. the set of  
resource names you use in these statements) does not implicitly define  
which entailment conditions are considered, whether those of OWL, RDFS or  
merely RDF, no matter if you include some resource names from the OWL or  
RDFS vocabulary in your statements. As such, they are just statements.

It is *the way you use* that document that defines the set of semantic  
conditions to consider. In other words, it depends on what kind of tool  
you adopt to answer the questions you make on that document: if you have a  
document containing the resource name "owl:FunctionalProperty" and you ask  
a question to a program who is aware of the semantic conditions defined by  
OWL, then it will take into account the specific semantic conditions  
attached to "owl:FunctionalProperty" that guarantee you a more  
sophisticated retrieval of information (I'm using your terminology here).  
If you ask the same question to a program that is not OWL-aware but only  
RDFS-aware, it will answer your question by treating  
"owl:FunctionalProperty" as any other domain-dependent resource name you  
could imagine (say "foo:bar"), thus missing to draw inferences which only  
the semantic conditions of OWL would have determined.

A -very limited- metaphor: you can tell me (I am the answering program)  
that you have a hammer, some nails and some pieces of wood (the document),  
but as long as I don't know that having a hammer will help you assemble  
your wood with your nails (semantic conditions), I will never suggest you  
that you can build a table (drawn inference)... for me, it would be the  
same as if you had told me that you've got a "bribus", some "tyrpels" and  
some pieces of "groind". Resource names with no special meaning at all.

For this reason, *every* document is not "a priori" labelled as being  
written in language RDF/RDFS/OWL/..., it is the program you use to answer  
questions posed on that document that is labelled with such language, and  
the more semantic conditions it can take into account to answer your  
questions, the more powerful answering tool you have. Those program are  
commonly called "reasoners", but I avoided to use that term because I know  
you hate it.

Eventually, back to your question: you ask whether to choose  
"rdf:Property" or any "owl:XXXProperty", and you say "the context is in  
created a RDF (not OWL) ontology". Well, if you already chose to discard  
OWL, in the sense that you are not interested in having your questions  
answered by an engine which takes into account the semantic conditions of  
OWL, then there is no special reason to choose any "owl:XXXProperty". But  
still, you don't have any side-effect in adopting them instead of  
"rdf:Property": simply, the tool answering your questions will only know  
which entailments are driven by the RDF vocabulary and ignore any  
additional entailment related to "owl:XXXProperty".

I hope I have replied to your question... please tell me in case I have  
failed.
Regards,

Andrea

In data Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:30:26 +0100, Paul S Prueitt  
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
>
> my question is about a selection between a non OWL RDF "definition" of
> "property" or the selection of one of two OWL defintions of property.
>
>> My question is about whether the attributes should be
>>
>>
>> owl:ObjectProperty
>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>> or
>> rdf:Property
>>
>>
>> advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is appreciated,
>> greatly.
>
> the context is in created a RDF (not OWL) ontology for the OASIS SOA-IM.
>
> specifically of 38 data objects having the form:
>
>
> ********
>
>>
>> 2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
>>
>> This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
>>
>> 2.1.1 Action
>>
>> A consequence of an event taking place.
>>
>>
>> Attribute       Type    Description
>> id      String256       Unique ID
>> name    String256       Action's name
>> description     String4000      Detailed description
>> event   String256       Event which this action relates to
>> reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
>> type    String256       The type of the Action
>> (Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>>
>>
>> Associated with
>> .       An Event where Event is the target object and association type  
>> is
>> "IsActionOf"
>>
>> Parent: Event
>>
>> is the first object.
>>
>> **********************************
>
> So I initially addressed the question to the protege-discussion forum  
> since
> my goal was to develop a RDF ontology unless I could see why the owl type
> property was better suited to modeling the SAO IM.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames

Paul S Prueitt
In reply to this post by Doug Holmes
Doug,



Have you read the OASIS SOA IM (service oriented architecture information
model) ?  so that you see what I am refering to.  I guess that you have not.
And that is ok.

My question is to someone who might take the time to look at the SOA IM and
to help me think through how to create an RDF document (not necessarily OWL)
so that the 38 data objects in the SOA IM are classes...  with some
relationships including some sub-class relationships.  The data objects have
what are called "attributes" which are globally defined in a way similar to
properties in RDF or OWL.  So I decided that I would use "property"...  but
in doing this I had a decision to make regarding the differences between the
three types of properties


>> owl:ObjectProperty
>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>> or
>> rdf:Property

so this was what my question was about.... I certain know of the W3C
documents


http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ (6.2) and http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-
guide/ (3.2 and 3.3)

and reading these (again) do help a little bit.  But the question still
remains about how someone with deep experience with both RDF and OWL would
address the broader question of modeling the SOA IM data objects in RDF...
and / or OWL.

The purpose of such a RDF or OWL model of this specific set of data objects
is to link in an formal ontology to web service data and process
interoperability.








-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Doug Holmes
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:46 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames


http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ (6.2) and http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-
guide/ (3.2 and 3.3)



On Feb 8, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Paul S Prueitt wrote:

>
>
> my question is about a selection between a non OWL RDF "definition" of
> "property" or the selection of one of two OWL defintions of property.
>
>> My question is about whether the attributes should be
>>
>>
>> owl:ObjectProperty
>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>> or
>> rdf:Property
>>
>>
>> advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is
>> appreciated,
>> greatly.
>
> the context is in created a RDF (not OWL) ontology for the OASIS
> SOA-IM.
>
> specifically of 38 data objects having the form:
>
>
> ********
>
>>
>> 2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
>>
>> This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
>>
>> 2.1.1 Action
>>
>> A consequence of an event taking place.
>>
>>
>> Attribute       Type    Description
>> id      String256       Unique ID
>> name    String256       Action's name
>> description     String4000      Detailed description
>> event   String256       Event which this action relates to
>> reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
>> type    String256       The type of the Action
>> (Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>>
>>
>> Associated with
>> .       An Event where Event is the target object and association
>> type is
>> "IsActionOf"
>>
>> Parent: Event
>>
>> is the first object.
>>
>> **********************************
>
> So I initially addressed the question to the protege-discussion
> forum since
> my goal was to develop a RDF ontology unless I could see why the
> owl type
> property was better suited to modeling the SAO IM.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/
> subscribe.html
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you

Paul S Prueitt
In reply to this post by Andrea Proli-2
Andrea,

you have really very nicely answered the core question ... about the choice

>> owl:ObjectProperty
>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>> or
>> rdf:Property

.... and you have provided a "why" in a complete sense.  You used my
language in a way that I am deeply grateful to you for.

I greatly understand something that I did not understand a few minutes ago.

I suspected some of what you said to be true, and learned a great deal in
your kind and thoughtful response.

I am in your debt.

Thank you... and sorry to others that I am sometimes a pain...

smiles

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:18 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames


Paul,
I need to point out some basic facts before answering your question. If
you find them boring or complicated, go directly to the answer at the end
of the post and proceed backwards until you get all of the motivations :)

Because of the way languages are layered in the Semantic Web tower, with
RDF at the base, a set of statements cannot be labelled "a priori" as
either an OWL document, an RDFS document, or an RDF document. A set of
statements is just a set of statements. It is the way you use that
document that defines whether you *interpret* your set of statements as
either an OWL document, or as an RDFS document, or as an RDF document.
Simply using resource names from the "owl" namespace does not implicitly
imports into your document all of the entailments associated to that
resource. I try to clarify.

RDF, RDFS and OWL define a set of "semantic conditions" attached to some
resource names in their vocabulary, which drive the so-called "vocabulary
entailment" (you can see the W3C RDF Semantics specification for details).
For example, RDF defines the semantic conditions attached to resource
names "rdf:type" and "rdf:Property" and so on, RDFS includes the semantic
conditions of RDF and further defines the ones attached to resource names
"rdfs:subclassOf", "rdfs:Class" and so on (so that more entailments are
drawn than from the RDF semantic conditions only), while OWL includes the
semantic conditions of both RDF and RDFS and adds those attached to
resource names "owl:TransitiveProperty", "owl:inverseOf", and so on (I am
actually omitting some details here).

Confusion can arise due to the fact that the RDF specification, apart from
the semantic conditions attached to the RDF vocabulary, also defines the
overall framework - I formalized this in a reply to a previous post of
yours about axioms and theories.

Now, once you have a set of statements, its vocabulary (i.e. the set of
resource names you use in these statements) does not implicitly define
which entailment conditions are considered, whether those of OWL, RDFS or
merely RDF, no matter if you include some resource names from the OWL or
RDFS vocabulary in your statements. As such, they are just statements.

It is *the way you use* that document that defines the set of semantic
conditions to consider. In other words, it depends on what kind of tool
you adopt to answer the questions you make on that document: if you have a
document containing the resource name "owl:FunctionalProperty" and you ask
a question to a program who is aware of the semantic conditions defined by
OWL, then it will take into account the specific semantic conditions
attached to "owl:FunctionalProperty" that guarantee you a more
sophisticated retrieval of information (I'm using your terminology here).
If you ask the same question to a program that is not OWL-aware but only
RDFS-aware, it will answer your question by treating
"owl:FunctionalProperty" as any other domain-dependent resource name you
could imagine (say "foo:bar"), thus missing to draw inferences which only
the semantic conditions of OWL would have determined.

A -very limited- metaphor: you can tell me (I am the answering program)
that you have a hammer, some nails and some pieces of wood (the document),
but as long as I don't know that having a hammer will help you assemble
your wood with your nails (semantic conditions), I will never suggest you
that you can build a table (drawn inference)... for me, it would be the
same as if you had told me that you've got a "bribus", some "tyrpels" and
some pieces of "groind". Resource names with no special meaning at all.

For this reason, *every* document is not "a priori" labelled as being
written in language RDF/RDFS/OWL/..., it is the program you use to answer
questions posed on that document that is labelled with such language, and
the more semantic conditions it can take into account to answer your
questions, the more powerful answering tool you have. Those program are
commonly called "reasoners", but I avoided to use that term because I know
you hate it.

Eventually, back to your question: you ask whether to choose
"rdf:Property" or any "owl:XXXProperty", and you say "the context is in
created a RDF (not OWL) ontology". Well, if you already chose to discard
OWL, in the sense that you are not interested in having your questions
answered by an engine which takes into account the semantic conditions of
OWL, then there is no special reason to choose any "owl:XXXProperty". But
still, you don't have any side-effect in adopting them instead of
"rdf:Property": simply, the tool answering your questions will only know
which entailments are driven by the RDF vocabulary and ignore any
additional entailment related to "owl:XXXProperty".

I hope I have replied to your question... please tell me in case I have
failed.
Regards,

Andrea

In data Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:30:26 +0100, Paul S Prueitt
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
>
> my question is about a selection between a non OWL RDF "definition" of
> "property" or the selection of one of two OWL defintions of property.
>
>> My question is about whether the attributes should be
>>
>>
>> owl:ObjectProperty
>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>> or
>> rdf:Property
>>
>>
>> advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is appreciated,
>> greatly.
>
> the context is in created a RDF (not OWL) ontology for the OASIS SOA-IM.
>
> specifically of 38 data objects having the form:
>
>
> ********
>
>>
>> 2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
>>
>> This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
>>
>> 2.1.1 Action
>>
>> A consequence of an event taking place.
>>
>>
>> Attribute       Type    Description
>> id      String256       Unique ID
>> name    String256       Action's name
>> description     String4000      Detailed description
>> event   String256       Event which this action relates to
>> reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
>> type    String256       The type of the Action
>> (Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>>
>>
>> Associated with
>> .       An Event where Event is the target object and association type
>> is
>> "IsActionOf"
>>
>> Parent: Event
>>
>> is the first object.
>>
>> **********************************
>
> So I initially addressed the question to the protege-discussion forum
> since
> my goal was to develop a RDF ontology unless I could see why the owl type
> property was better suited to modeling the SAO IM.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you

Andrea Proli-2
Hi Paul,
I am really glad that my post was helpful to you, don't feel in debt.
Perhaps, I will bother you with some questions about complexity when the  
Robert Rosen's book I have just bought will eventually be shipped to me ;)

Andrea

In data Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:51:35 +0100, Paul S Prueitt  
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Andrea,
>
> you have really very nicely answered the core question ... about the  
> choice
>
>>> owl:ObjectProperty
>>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>>> or
>>> rdf:Property
>
> .... and you have provided a "why" in a complete sense.  You used my
> language in a way that I am deeply grateful to you for.
>
> I greatly understand something that I did not understand a few minutes  
> ago.
>
> I suspected some of what you said to be true, and learned a great deal in
> your kind and thoughtful response.
>
> I am in your debt.
>
> Thank you... and sorry to others that I am sometimes a pain...
>
> smiles
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:18 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames
>
>
> Paul,
> I need to point out some basic facts before answering your question. If
> you find them boring or complicated, go directly to the answer at the end
> of the post and proceed backwards until you get all of the motivations :)
>
> Because of the way languages are layered in the Semantic Web tower, with
> RDF at the base, a set of statements cannot be labelled "a priori" as
> either an OWL document, an RDFS document, or an RDF document. A set of
> statements is just a set of statements. It is the way you use that
> document that defines whether you *interpret* your set of statements as
> either an OWL document, or as an RDFS document, or as an RDF document.
> Simply using resource names from the "owl" namespace does not implicitly
> imports into your document all of the entailments associated to that
> resource. I try to clarify.
>
> RDF, RDFS and OWL define a set of "semantic conditions" attached to some
> resource names in their vocabulary, which drive the so-called "vocabulary
> entailment" (you can see the W3C RDF Semantics specification for  
> details).
> For example, RDF defines the semantic conditions attached to resource
> names "rdf:type" and "rdf:Property" and so on, RDFS includes the semantic
> conditions of RDF and further defines the ones attached to resource names
> "rdfs:subclassOf", "rdfs:Class" and so on (so that more entailments are
> drawn than from the RDF semantic conditions only), while OWL includes the
> semantic conditions of both RDF and RDFS and adds those attached to
> resource names "owl:TransitiveProperty", "owl:inverseOf", and so on (I am
> actually omitting some details here).
>
> Confusion can arise due to the fact that the RDF specification, apart  
> from
> the semantic conditions attached to the RDF vocabulary, also defines the
> overall framework - I formalized this in a reply to a previous post of
> yours about axioms and theories.
>
> Now, once you have a set of statements, its vocabulary (i.e. the set of
> resource names you use in these statements) does not implicitly define
> which entailment conditions are considered, whether those of OWL, RDFS or
> merely RDF, no matter if you include some resource names from the OWL or
> RDFS vocabulary in your statements. As such, they are just statements.
>
> It is *the way you use* that document that defines the set of semantic
> conditions to consider. In other words, it depends on what kind of tool
> you adopt to answer the questions you make on that document: if you have  
> a
> document containing the resource name "owl:FunctionalProperty" and you  
> ask
> a question to a program who is aware of the semantic conditions defined  
> by
> OWL, then it will take into account the specific semantic conditions
> attached to "owl:FunctionalProperty" that guarantee you a more
> sophisticated retrieval of information (I'm using your terminology here).
> If you ask the same question to a program that is not OWL-aware but only
> RDFS-aware, it will answer your question by treating
> "owl:FunctionalProperty" as any other domain-dependent resource name you
> could imagine (say "foo:bar"), thus missing to draw inferences which only
> the semantic conditions of OWL would have determined.
>
> A -very limited- metaphor: you can tell me (I am the answering program)
> that you have a hammer, some nails and some pieces of wood (the  
> document),
> but as long as I don't know that having a hammer will help you assemble
> your wood with your nails (semantic conditions), I will never suggest you
> that you can build a table (drawn inference)... for me, it would be the
> same as if you had told me that you've got a "bribus", some "tyrpels" and
> some pieces of "groind". Resource names with no special meaning at all.
>
> For this reason, *every* document is not "a priori" labelled as being
> written in language RDF/RDFS/OWL/..., it is the program you use to answer
> questions posed on that document that is labelled with such language, and
> the more semantic conditions it can take into account to answer your
> questions, the more powerful answering tool you have. Those program are
> commonly called "reasoners", but I avoided to use that term because I  
> know
> you hate it.
>
> Eventually, back to your question: you ask whether to choose
> "rdf:Property" or any "owl:XXXProperty", and you say "the context is in
> created a RDF (not OWL) ontology". Well, if you already chose to discard
> OWL, in the sense that you are not interested in having your questions
> answered by an engine which takes into account the semantic conditions of
> OWL, then there is no special reason to choose any "owl:XXXProperty". But
> still, you don't have any side-effect in adopting them instead of
> "rdf:Property": simply, the tool answering your questions will only know
> which entailments are driven by the RDF vocabulary and ignore any
> additional entailment related to "owl:XXXProperty".
>
> I hope I have replied to your question... please tell me in case I have
> failed.
> Regards,
>
> Andrea
>
> In data Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:30:26 +0100, Paul S Prueitt
> <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
>>
>>
>> my question is about a selection between a non OWL RDF "definition" of
>> "property" or the selection of one of two OWL defintions of property.
>>
>>> My question is about whether the attributes should be
>>>
>>>
>>> owl:ObjectProperty
>>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>>> or
>>> rdf:Property
>>>
>>>
>>> advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is appreciated,
>>> greatly.
>>
>> the context is in created a RDF (not OWL) ontology for the OASIS SOA-IM.
>>
>> specifically of 38 data objects having the form:
>>
>>
>> ********
>>
>>>
>>> 2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
>>>
>>> This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
>>>
>>> 2.1.1 Action
>>>
>>> A consequence of an event taking place.
>>>
>>>
>>> Attribute       Type    Description
>>> id      String256       Unique ID
>>> name    String256       Action's name
>>> description     String4000      Detailed description
>>> event   String256       Event which this action relates to
>>> reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
>>> type    String256       The type of the Action
>>> (Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>>>
>>>
>>> Associated with
>>> .       An Event where Event is the target object and association type
>>> is
>>> "IsActionOf"
>>>
>>> Parent: Event
>>>
>>> is the first object.
>>>
>>> **********************************
>>
>> So I initially addressed the question to the protege-discussion forum
>> since
>> my goal was to develop a RDF ontology unless I could see why the owl  
>> type
>> property was better suited to modeling the SAO IM.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe go to  
>> http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you

Paul S Prueitt

one interesting way to get into the issues of natural complexity, and the
impact that natural science has, or should have, on computer science is to
look at the discussion on the bcngroup glass bead games, starting with

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/314.htm

also you can talk directly with Judith Rosen.

The effort I am making to look more closely at the Protege paradigm(s) for
ontology modeling started with this inquiry about the notion of property,
and related notions of slots and fillers, attributes, and relationships.

In the Orb notations

http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/Notation/notation.htm

for ontological modeling, one starts with an ordered triple <a,r,b> with
quite natural correspondances to a graph having two nodes and a link.  The
link is quite naturally thought of as a relationship.  A property can be a
relationship.  An attribute can be a property.

Because properties in OWL are categories, defined globally not locally, one
can think of a theory of type related to properties...  so that the number
of properties defined in an OWL file can be equal to the number of
categories in a global theory of property type.  The same situation exists
for the attributes of the OASIS standard SOA IM (service oriented
architecture information model).  An attribute, like "event" in the SOA IM
"enitity" "action"  is in fact a category and is one of 68 such categories
defined by the IM attributes.

*****

2.1.1 Action

A consequence of an event taking place.


Attribute Type Description
id String256 Unique ID
name String256 Action's name
description String4000 Detailed description
event String256 Event which this action relates to
referenceList Set A set of collaborative entity ids (references). The Set
data type is a collection that does not contain duplicate elements.
type String256 The type of the Action
(Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)


Associated with
· An Event where the Event is the target object and association type is
"IsActionOf"

Parent: Event

*****

An important concern about the Protege paradigm(s) ... I guess one might
talk about protege frames and protege OWL, is to be able to fairly quickly
see the boundaries of the paradigm.  Are relationships like properties, etc.

A list of RDF vocabulary, is a start.  But the complicated nature of the
Protege softwre makes most of the discussion about the software, not about
the issues and difficulties involved in creating ontological models, say for
example of the SOA IM.

But what is a property?  The definition is not standard from OWL to KIF to
RDF nor to various usage in the knowledge engineering literature.  To go
back to your discussion about the meaning of "complex number", the meaning
of number is really almost universal, and rarely would one find someone
talking about "complexity" as something implied by "complex number".  But
properties, relationships, attributes, etc are vague notions in the
Knowledge Engineering literature, are they not?  We even have sentences, in
Protege literature, that use the term "widget" where one expects to have the
term "slot".  A widget is a software element.

Comments from anyone?





-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:15 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you


Hi Paul,
I am really glad that my post was helpful to you, don't feel in debt.
Perhaps, I will bother you with some questions about complexity when the
Robert Rosen's book I have just bought will eventually be shipped to me ;)

Andrea

In data Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:51:35 +0100, Paul S Prueitt
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Andrea,
>
> you have really very nicely answered the core question ... about the
> choice
>
>>> owl:ObjectProperty
>>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>>> or
>>> rdf:Property
>
> .... and you have provided a "why" in a complete sense.  You used my
> language in a way that I am deeply grateful to you for.
>
> I greatly understand something that I did not understand a few minutes
> ago.
>
> I suspected some of what you said to be true, and learned a great deal in
> your kind and thoughtful response.
>
> I am in your debt.
>
> Thank you... and sorry to others that I am sometimes a pain...
>
> smiles
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:18 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames
>
>
> Paul,
> I need to point out some basic facts before answering your question. If
> you find them boring or complicated, go directly to the answer at the end
> of the post and proceed backwards until you get all of the motivations :)
>
> Because of the way languages are layered in the Semantic Web tower, with
> RDF at the base, a set of statements cannot be labelled "a priori" as
> either an OWL document, an RDFS document, or an RDF document. A set of
> statements is just a set of statements. It is the way you use that
> document that defines whether you *interpret* your set of statements as
> either an OWL document, or as an RDFS document, or as an RDF document.
> Simply using resource names from the "owl" namespace does not implicitly
> imports into your document all of the entailments associated to that
> resource. I try to clarify.
>
> RDF, RDFS and OWL define a set of "semantic conditions" attached to some
> resource names in their vocabulary, which drive the so-called "vocabulary
> entailment" (you can see the W3C RDF Semantics specification for
> details).
> For example, RDF defines the semantic conditions attached to resource
> names "rdf:type" and "rdf:Property" and so on, RDFS includes the semantic
> conditions of RDF and further defines the ones attached to resource names
> "rdfs:subclassOf", "rdfs:Class" and so on (so that more entailments are
> drawn than from the RDF semantic conditions only), while OWL includes the
> semantic conditions of both RDF and RDFS and adds those attached to
> resource names "owl:TransitiveProperty", "owl:inverseOf", and so on (I am
> actually omitting some details here).
>
> Confusion can arise due to the fact that the RDF specification, apart
> from
> the semantic conditions attached to the RDF vocabulary, also defines the
> overall framework - I formalized this in a reply to a previous post of
> yours about axioms and theories.
>
> Now, once you have a set of statements, its vocabulary (i.e. the set of
> resource names you use in these statements) does not implicitly define
> which entailment conditions are considered, whether those of OWL, RDFS or
> merely RDF, no matter if you include some resource names from the OWL or
> RDFS vocabulary in your statements. As such, they are just statements.
>
> It is *the way you use* that document that defines the set of semantic
> conditions to consider. In other words, it depends on what kind of tool
> you adopt to answer the questions you make on that document: if you have
> a
> document containing the resource name "owl:FunctionalProperty" and you
> ask
> a question to a program who is aware of the semantic conditions defined
> by
> OWL, then it will take into account the specific semantic conditions
> attached to "owl:FunctionalProperty" that guarantee you a more
> sophisticated retrieval of information (I'm using your terminology here).
> If you ask the same question to a program that is not OWL-aware but only
> RDFS-aware, it will answer your question by treating
> "owl:FunctionalProperty" as any other domain-dependent resource name you
> could imagine (say "foo:bar"), thus missing to draw inferences which only
> the semantic conditions of OWL would have determined.
>
> A -very limited- metaphor: you can tell me (I am the answering program)
> that you have a hammer, some nails and some pieces of wood (the
> document),
> but as long as I don't know that having a hammer will help you assemble
> your wood with your nails (semantic conditions), I will never suggest you
> that you can build a table (drawn inference)... for me, it would be the
> same as if you had told me that you've got a "bribus", some "tyrpels" and
> some pieces of "groind". Resource names with no special meaning at all.
>
> For this reason, *every* document is not "a priori" labelled as being
> written in language RDF/RDFS/OWL/..., it is the program you use to answer
> questions posed on that document that is labelled with such language, and
> the more semantic conditions it can take into account to answer your
> questions, the more powerful answering tool you have. Those program are
> commonly called "reasoners", but I avoided to use that term because I
> know
> you hate it.
>
> Eventually, back to your question: you ask whether to choose
> "rdf:Property" or any "owl:XXXProperty", and you say "the context is in
> created a RDF (not OWL) ontology". Well, if you already chose to discard
> OWL, in the sense that you are not interested in having your questions
> answered by an engine which takes into account the semantic conditions of
> OWL, then there is no special reason to choose any "owl:XXXProperty". But
> still, you don't have any side-effect in adopting them instead of
> "rdf:Property": simply, the tool answering your questions will only know
> which entailments are driven by the RDF vocabulary and ignore any
> additional entailment related to "owl:XXXProperty".
>
> I hope I have replied to your question... please tell me in case I have
> failed.
> Regards,
>
> Andrea
>
> In data Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:30:26 +0100, Paul S Prueitt
> <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
>>
>>
>> my question is about a selection between a non OWL RDF "definition" of
>> "property" or the selection of one of two OWL defintions of property.
>>
>>> My question is about whether the attributes should be
>>>
>>>
>>> owl:ObjectProperty
>>> owl:DatatypeProperty
>>> or
>>> rdf:Property
>>>
>>>
>>> advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is appreciated,
>>> greatly.
>>
>> the context is in created a RDF (not OWL) ontology for the OASIS SOA-IM.
>>
>> specifically of 38 data objects having the form:
>>
>>
>> ********
>>
>>>
>>> 2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
>>>
>>> This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
>>>
>>> 2.1.1 Action
>>>
>>> A consequence of an event taking place.
>>>
>>>
>>> Attribute       Type    Description
>>> id      String256       Unique ID
>>> name    String256       Action's name
>>> description     String4000      Detailed description
>>> event   String256       Event which this action relates to
>>> reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
>>> type    String256       The type of the Action
>>> (Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>>>
>>>
>>> Associated with
>>> .       An Event where Event is the target object and association type
>>> is
>>> "IsActionOf"
>>>
>>> Parent: Event
>>>
>>> is the first object.
>>>
>>> **********************************
>>
>> So I initially addressed the question to the protege-discussion forum
>> since
>> my goal was to develop a RDF ontology unless I could see why the owl
>> type
>> property was better suited to modeling the SAO IM.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe go to
>> http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'

samsontu
In reply to this post by Paul S Prueitt
Hi,

We set up the policy of manually moderating messages posted to
protege-discussion that contains the "OWL" keyword because, previously,
too many OWL-specific questions were being posted to the
protege-discussion list. We believe that direction of messages to the
appropriate forum is a service to the community and not a form of
censorship.

Your question about appropriate use of

 >owl:ObjectProperty
 >owl:DatatypeProperty
 >and
 >rdf:Property

is something that can be best answered by one who has a good knowledge
of OWL. I think the moderator made the right call to suggest that you
post it here.

Samson

Paul S Prueitt wrote:

>
> there are issues that cross the category of "protege-owl" or protege-frames.
> I would prefer to allow the individual making the post to determine which
> forum to post to.
>
> there is similarities and differences related to the two group's focus.  My
> question applied to both the owl side and the non owl side..
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Ronald
> Cornet
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:50 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [protege-owl] Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'
>
>
> At 08:05 08-02-06 -0700, Paul Prueitt wrote:
>
>>I respectfully request that a moderator not block my posts to either
>>protege-owl or protege because I am a leading researcher in this field and
>
> I
>
>>maintain that I have professional intentions to each of my posts.  I am an
>>American citizen.
>
>
> There is a simple if-then rule in play.
> If [message contains the OWL] then it should not be directed to the
> protege-discussion list but to protege-owl.
>
> That is not a matter of censorship, but rather a great feature, in order to
> get the right mails at the right mailing lists.
> There are many among us, leading researcher or not, who mistakenly post to
> the wrong list.
>
> As the benefit is prevention of having to receive many
> unwanted/inappropriate mails , and the cost is that occasionally a mail
> gets blocked (NOT censored), the benefit largely outweighs the disadvantage.
>
> I think it is unfair to accuse anyone of censorship because of the actual
> content of the message, as this is definitely not the case.
> It is a mere matter of great moderation, in which large efforts are being
> invested. So thanks to Ted Hopper!
>
> Ronald
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>


--
Samson Tu                    email: [hidden email]
Senior Research Scientist    web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
Stanford Medical Informatics phone: 1-650-725-3391
Stanford University          fax: 1-650-725-7944
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you

Ronnie Valkky
In reply to this post by Paul S Prueitt
Hi Paul,

The following is just to give some ideas referring to your question "what is
a property?"
Property
n., pl. -ties. 1. that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of
a particular owner
2. goods, land, etc., considered as possessions
3. a piece of land or real estate
4. ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, esp.
of something tangible
5. something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the
community or public
6. an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing
7. Logic
7.a any attribute or characteristic
7.b in Aristotelian logic an attribute not essential to a species but always
connected with it and with it alone
8. also called prop. a usually movable item, other than costumes or scenery,
used on a set of theater production,
motion picture, etc. any object used or handled by an actor in a performance
9. a written work, play, movie, etc. bought or optioned for commercial
production or distribution
10. a person, esp. under contract in entertainment or sports, regarded as
having commercial value,
an actor, who was a hot property at the time
Thing
n. a thing or person that represnts perfectly or in the best way a class or
category
Class
n. a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of
common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits
;kind; sort; a class of objects used in daily living

What is it NOT ?

How does the definition depend on context/time/location ?

Regards,
Ronnie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <[hidden email]>; "John F. Sowa" <[hidden email]>;
"Judith Rosen" <[hidden email]>; "Andrea Proli" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:16 PM
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you


>
> one interesting way to get into the issues of natural complexity, and the
> impact that natural science has, or should have, on computer science is to
> look at the discussion on the bcngroup glass bead games, starting with
>
> http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/314.htm
>
> also you can talk directly with Judith Rosen.
>
> The effort I am making to look more closely at the Protege paradigm(s) for
> ontology modeling started with this inquiry about the notion of property,
> and related notions of slots and fillers, attributes, and relationships.
>
> In the Orb notations
>
> http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/Notation/notation.htm
>
> for ontological modeling, one starts with an ordered triple <a,r,b> with
> quite natural correspondances to a graph having two nodes and a link.  The
> link is quite naturally thought of as a relationship.  A property can be a
> relationship.  An attribute can be a property.
>
> Because properties in OWL are categories, defined globally not locally,
one

> can think of a theory of type related to properties...  so that the number
> of properties defined in an OWL file can be equal to the number of
> categories in a global theory of property type.  The same situation exists
> for the attributes of the OASIS standard SOA IM (service oriented
> architecture information model).  An attribute, like "event" in the SOA IM
> "enitity" "action"  is in fact a category and is one of 68 such categories
> defined by the IM attributes.
>
> *****
>
> 2.1.1 Action
>
> A consequence of an event taking place.
>
>
> Attribute Type Description
> id String256 Unique ID
> name String256 Action's name
> description String4000 Detailed description
> event String256 Event which this action relates to
> referenceList Set A set of collaborative entity ids (references). The Set
> data type is a collection that does not contain duplicate elements.
> type String256 The type of the Action
> (Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
>
>
> Associated with
> · An Event where the Event is the target object and association type is
> "IsActionOf"
>
> Parent: Event
>
> *****
>
> An important concern about the Protege paradigm(s) ... I guess one might
> talk about protege frames and protege OWL, is to be able to fairly quickly
> see the boundaries of the paradigm.  Are relationships like properties,
etc.
>
> A list of RDF vocabulary, is a start.  But the complicated nature of the
> Protege softwre makes most of the discussion about the software, not about
> the issues and difficulties involved in creating ontological models, say
for
> example of the SOA IM.
>
> But what is a property?  The definition is not standard from OWL to KIF to
> RDF nor to various usage in the knowledge engineering literature.  To go
> back to your discussion about the meaning of "complex number", the meaning
> of number is really almost universal, and rarely would one find someone
> talking about "complexity" as something implied by "complex number".  But
> properties, relationships, attributes, etc are vague notions in the
> Knowledge Engineering literature, are they not?  We even have sentences,
in
> Protege literature, that use the term "widget" where one expects to have
the

> term "slot".  A widget is a software element.
>
> Comments from anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:15 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you
>
>
> Hi Paul,
> I am really glad that my post was helpful to you, don't feel in debt.
> Perhaps, I will bother you with some questions about complexity when the
> Robert Rosen's book I have just bought will eventually be shipped to me ;)
>
> Andrea
>
> In data Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:51:35 +0100, Paul S Prueitt
> <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> > Andrea,
> >
> > you have really very nicely answered the core question ... about the
> > choice
> >
> >>> owl:ObjectProperty
> >>> owl:DatatypeProperty
> >>> or
> >>> rdf:Property
> >
> > .... and you have provided a "why" in a complete sense.  You used my
> > language in a way that I am deeply grateful to you for.
> >
> > I greatly understand something that I did not understand a few minutes
> > ago.
> >
> > I suspected some of what you said to be true, and learned a great deal
in

> > your kind and thoughtful response.
> >
> > I am in your debt.
> >
> > Thank you... and sorry to others that I am sometimes a pain...
> >
> > smiles
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:18 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames
> >
> >
> > Paul,
> > I need to point out some basic facts before answering your question. If
> > you find them boring or complicated, go directly to the answer at the
end
> > of the post and proceed backwards until you get all of the motivations
:)

> >
> > Because of the way languages are layered in the Semantic Web tower, with
> > RDF at the base, a set of statements cannot be labelled "a priori" as
> > either an OWL document, an RDFS document, or an RDF document. A set of
> > statements is just a set of statements. It is the way you use that
> > document that defines whether you *interpret* your set of statements as
> > either an OWL document, or as an RDFS document, or as an RDF document.
> > Simply using resource names from the "owl" namespace does not implicitly
> > imports into your document all of the entailments associated to that
> > resource. I try to clarify.
> >
> > RDF, RDFS and OWL define a set of "semantic conditions" attached to some
> > resource names in their vocabulary, which drive the so-called
"vocabulary
> > entailment" (you can see the W3C RDF Semantics specification for
> > details).
> > For example, RDF defines the semantic conditions attached to resource
> > names "rdf:type" and "rdf:Property" and so on, RDFS includes the
semantic
> > conditions of RDF and further defines the ones attached to resource
names
> > "rdfs:subclassOf", "rdfs:Class" and so on (so that more entailments are
> > drawn than from the RDF semantic conditions only), while OWL includes
the
> > semantic conditions of both RDF and RDFS and adds those attached to
> > resource names "owl:TransitiveProperty", "owl:inverseOf", and so on (I
am

> > actually omitting some details here).
> >
> > Confusion can arise due to the fact that the RDF specification, apart
> > from
> > the semantic conditions attached to the RDF vocabulary, also defines the
> > overall framework - I formalized this in a reply to a previous post of
> > yours about axioms and theories.
> >
> > Now, once you have a set of statements, its vocabulary (i.e. the set of
> > resource names you use in these statements) does not implicitly define
> > which entailment conditions are considered, whether those of OWL, RDFS
or

> > merely RDF, no matter if you include some resource names from the OWL or
> > RDFS vocabulary in your statements. As such, they are just statements.
> >
> > It is *the way you use* that document that defines the set of semantic
> > conditions to consider. In other words, it depends on what kind of tool
> > you adopt to answer the questions you make on that document: if you have
> > a
> > document containing the resource name "owl:FunctionalProperty" and you
> > ask
> > a question to a program who is aware of the semantic conditions defined
> > by
> > OWL, then it will take into account the specific semantic conditions
> > attached to "owl:FunctionalProperty" that guarantee you a more
> > sophisticated retrieval of information (I'm using your terminology
here).
> > If you ask the same question to a program that is not OWL-aware but only
> > RDFS-aware, it will answer your question by treating
> > "owl:FunctionalProperty" as any other domain-dependent resource name you
> > could imagine (say "foo:bar"), thus missing to draw inferences which
only
> > the semantic conditions of OWL would have determined.
> >
> > A -very limited- metaphor: you can tell me (I am the answering program)
> > that you have a hammer, some nails and some pieces of wood (the
> > document),
> > but as long as I don't know that having a hammer will help you assemble
> > your wood with your nails (semantic conditions), I will never suggest
you
> > that you can build a table (drawn inference)... for me, it would be the
> > same as if you had told me that you've got a "bribus", some "tyrpels"
and
> > some pieces of "groind". Resource names with no special meaning at all.
> >
> > For this reason, *every* document is not "a priori" labelled as being
> > written in language RDF/RDFS/OWL/..., it is the program you use to
answer
> > questions posed on that document that is labelled with such language,
and

> > the more semantic conditions it can take into account to answer your
> > questions, the more powerful answering tool you have. Those program are
> > commonly called "reasoners", but I avoided to use that term because I
> > know
> > you hate it.
> >
> > Eventually, back to your question: you ask whether to choose
> > "rdf:Property" or any "owl:XXXProperty", and you say "the context is in
> > created a RDF (not OWL) ontology". Well, if you already chose to discard
> > OWL, in the sense that you are not interested in having your questions
> > answered by an engine which takes into account the semantic conditions
of
> > OWL, then there is no special reason to choose any "owl:XXXProperty".
But

> > still, you don't have any side-effect in adopting them instead of
> > "rdf:Property": simply, the tool answering your questions will only know
> > which entailments are driven by the RDF vocabulary and ignore any
> > additional entailment related to "owl:XXXProperty".
> >
> > I hope I have replied to your question... please tell me in case I have
> > failed.
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andrea
> >
> > In data Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:30:26 +0100, Paul S Prueitt
> > <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> my question is about a selection between a non OWL RDF "definition" of
> >> "property" or the selection of one of two OWL defintions of property.
> >>
> >>> My question is about whether the attributes should be
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> owl:ObjectProperty
> >>> owl:DatatypeProperty
> >>> or
> >>> rdf:Property
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> advice and explaination of why the advise is (as it is) is
appreciated,
> >>> greatly.
> >>
> >> the context is in created a RDF (not OWL) ontology for the OASIS
SOA-IM.

> >>
> >> specifically of 38 data objects having the form:
> >>
> >>
> >> ********
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2.1 SOA Information Model Entities
> >>>
> >>> This section covers all SOA IM entities and their attributes.
> >>>
> >>> 2.1.1 Action
> >>>
> >>> A consequence of an event taking place.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Attribute       Type    Description
> >>> id      String256       Unique ID
> >>> name    String256       Action's name
> >>> description     String4000      Detailed description
> >>> event   String256       Event which this action relates to
> >>> reference       String256       Unique ID of the reference
> >>> type    String256       The type of the Action
> >>> (Alert/Compensation/Information/Insertion/Termination/Trigger Flow)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Associated with
> >>> .       An Event where Event is the target object and association type
> >>> is
> >>> "IsActionOf"
> >>>
> >>> Parent: Event
> >>>
> >>> is the first object.
> >>>
> >>> **********************************
> >>
> >> So I initially addressed the question to the protege-discussion forum
> >> since
> >> my goal was to develop a RDF ontology unless I could see why the owl
> >> type
> >> property was better suited to modeling the SAO IM.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe go to
> >> http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
> >>
> >
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe go to
http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
> >
> >
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe go to
http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you

Raj M Verma
hi,

the discussion between Andrea and Paul on Owl/RDF/RDFS properties is really very informative... I wud like to ask one more question regarding the relation amoung these three different types of properties...

In the Pizza Ontology, most of the properties are of the Owl type, but the "subClassOf" properties is of the RDFS type... why is this so? is it because there is no possibility of using "owl:subClassOf" property, or is there any advantage of using this rdfs type for "subClassOf" property even if there is a possibility of using "owl:subClassOf"?

If I want to get the full use of Owl advantages is there a need to also use RDF/RDFS properties in the ontology?

thanq,
Raj.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you

Andrea Proli
Hi Raj,
I am afraid the important issues here can not be explained in a few words  
because it seems to me that you are a little confused and you probably  
would need an extended answer, which unfortunately I do not have time to  
write at the moment. But still, I try to give you an intuitive explanation  
through an example.



Consider the differences between owl:Class and rdfs:Class. OWL "overrides"  
the rdfs:Class resource by additionally defining an owl:Class resource  
(though, it would better be qualified as "owl-dl:Class" in my humble  
opinion) because not all RDFS classes are valid OWL classes, and this is  
due to the fact, among the others, that classes in RDFS can be instances  
of other classes, while in OWL-DL and OWL-lite this is forbidden. Thus,  
there is a precise motivation to specialize rdfs:Class by means of  
owl:Class.

To cite the authors of the OWL Reference Guide  
[http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/]:

"owl:Class is defined as a subclass of rdfs:Class. The rationale for  
having a separate OWL class construct lies in the restrictions on OWL DL  
(and thus also on OWL Lite), which imply that not all RDFS classes are  
legal OWL DL classes. In OWL Full these restrictions do not exist and  
therefore owl:Class and rdfs:Class are equivalent in OWL Full."

Instead, the subclass relationship as defined by RDFS (rdfs:subclassof) is  
neither too powerful for OWL (as the rdfs:Class resource is) neither too  
poor, indeed its semantics ("A is a subclass of B if and only if the set  
of individuals ext(A) denoted by A is a subset of the set of individuals  
ext(B) denoted by B) remains applicable and unchanged, no matter whether A  
and B are "rdfs:Class"es or "owl:Class"es. Thus, there is no need to  
introduce a specialized "owl:subclassOf" property and this is why, indeed,  
such a specialized property does not exist.

In general, the reason why you have an "owl:" version for some resources,  
and not for some others, is that in some cases the original ones are not  
"suited" for OWL (rdfs:Class, for instance, is too "powerful", it has too  
few semantic conditions attach and does not constrain the legal  
interpretation to a degree that is compatible with the definition of a  
"Class" in OWL).



Another important thing in answering your questions is the following: you  
should not deduce that you are "using OWL" from the mere fact that the  
"owl:" prefix appears in your document, and viceversa you should not think  
that in order to "use OWL" you need to add "owl:" prefix somewhere in your  
document. Your document, "a priori", is just a set of statements written  
in RDF syntax with resource names coming from a given vocabulary (say OWL,  
RDFS, no matter what ...). It is the fact that *the program you use to  
answer your questions over that document* is aware of the semantic  
conditions attached to those terms by the definition of OWL, or RDFS, etc,  
and produces entailments according to those conditions, that really tells  
you that OWL is being "used". The source of confusion might be that it is  
often implicitly assume that documents containing a resource name coming  
 from the "owl:" namespace are "reasoned" over by OWL-aware programs.

So, in the end, the answer to your question "If I want to get the full use  
of Owl advantages is there a need to also use RDF/RDFS properties in the  
ontology?" is "no".

I'm not sure whether this post was clear enough, so if you have some  
refined questions I will try to answer in the best way I can.

Regards,

Andrea


On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:06:06 +0100, Raj M Verma <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> hi,
>
> the discussion between Andrea and Paul on Owl/RDF/RDFS properties is  
> really
> very informative... I wud like to ask one more question regarding the
> relation amoung these three different types of properties...
>
> In the Pizza Ontology, most of the properties are of the Owl type, but  
> the
> "subClassOf" properties is of the RDFS type... why is this so? is it  
> because
> there is no possibility of using "owl:subClassOf" property, or is there  
> any
> advantage of using this rdfs type for "subClassOf" property even if  
> there is
> a possibility of using "owl:subClassOf"?
>
> If I want to get the full use of Owl advantages is there a need to also  
> use
> RDF/RDFS properties in the ontology?
>
> thanq,
> Raj.



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you

Nick Drummond
In reply to this post by Raj M Verma
Raj,

The meaning of rdfs:subClassOf  in OWL and RDFS is exactly the same [1].

Nick

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#subClassOf-def

Raj M Verma wrote:

> hi,
>
> the discussion between Andrea and Paul on Owl/RDF/RDFS properties is
> really very informative... I wud like to ask one more question
> regarding the relation amoung these three different types of properties...
>
> In the Pizza Ontology, most of the properties are of the Owl type, but
> the "subClassOf" properties is of the RDFS type... why is this so? is
> it because there is no possibility of using "owl:subClassOf" property,
> or is there any advantage of using this rdfs type for "subClassOf"
> property even if there is a possibility of using "owl:subClassOf"?
>
> If I want to get the full use of Owl advantages is there a need to
> also use RDF/RDFS properties in the ontology?
>
> thanq,
> Raj.


--

Nick Drummond

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/ <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

descriptive logic based ontology

Paul S Prueitt
In reply to this post by Andrea Proli

Please excuse the cross posting to both Protege forums.  I would like to
know precisely where this discussion belongs; but perhaps it belongs to both
the Protege-Discussion (which is supported to be about protege-frames
(derived from CLIPS but not derived from KIF), and Protege-Owl - which is
specific to Owl.  Advise on how to address both forums is requested.  (You
can post this privately to me.)



Just for clarification.  An class instance of a class, A, is not the same as
a sub-class of class A.

Is this true?  I do not always get these types of things correct.

I think that it is ture, according to "all" ? descriptive logics.

This turns out to be an important feature of the DL based ontologies.  The
paradigm is often that individuals are treated quite differently than
"classes".  This seems correct, from one point of view.  However, the nature
of ...  hum..  this goes into something called natural category theory, but
perhaps I can say this right.

<side remark>

The nature of "natural category" formation (such as in cell, gene or social
expression) and the nature of linguistic category formation (which is
derivitive of the other forms of biological expression) treats instances of
a particular in two ways; first as the thing itself and second as part of a
"system" of functional types related to the role that the instance plays in
a specific instance.  This is called "double articulation" in linguistics,
and degeneracy in cell and gene signal pathway expression.  My group is
working on a means based on Soviet era "applied semiotics" for a
n-articulated ontological framework.

But, and this is important if the work on "n-articulated ontology" is to be
understood...  the DL based ontologies create a spable "finite state
machine" where some aspects not achievable in the object oriented data
object definitions cannot achieve.  So in principle, the n-articilated
ontological framework should produce a DL based ontology, and the
translation of a DL based ontology to a object oriented data object (or
system of objects like the SOA IM).

<end side remark>

I appologize if I said this poorly.  Clearly issues now being worked on
regarding the goals of a web service request must take n-articulation into
account, somehow.


so back to the class instance discussion.


 There is no doubt that DL based ontology has to have some ackwardness if it
is to remain true to descriptive logics.  The issue that many of us are
addressing is the translation of data specifications made in UML and object
oriented type information models and standards (such as the ISO 11179 and
the SOA - IM).  The larger issue is the development of control interfaces
using information model based standards when DL based ontological models are
also "linked".

In this case, one has to ask what is "something", that is instanced.  What
is the meaning of something that is defined as an instance.  Functionally,
anything "specific", ie an instance, that serves a purpose is in fact both
an instance and treated as if a class, ie a category.   The nature of
"serving a purpose"

This is precisely where the structure to function relationship arise, with
the many to many mapping in natural systems.  In gene and cell expression
ontology this many to many expression property is called "degeneracy" by
leading scientists, such as Gerald Edelman.

Andrea's assistance in teasing out the properties of RDF, RDFS, and the DL
based ontology is very valable to all of us.  Of course protege frames is a
DL (descriptive logic) based ontology , as is the three or four forms of OWL
(Lite, DL, Full, and S ?)





-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:26 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you


Hi Raj,
I am afraid the important issues here can not be explained in a few words
because it seems to me that you are a little confused and you probably
would need an extended answer, which unfortunately I do not have time to
write at the moment. But still, I try to give you an intuitive explanation
through an example.



Consider the differences between owl:Class and rdfs:Class. OWL "overrides"
the rdfs:Class resource by additionally defining an owl:Class resource
(though, it would better be qualified as "owl-dl:Class" in my humble
opinion) because not all RDFS classes are valid OWL classes, and this is
due to the fact, among the others, that classes in RDFS can be instances
of other classes, while in OWL-DL and OWL-lite this is forbidden. Thus,
there is a precise motivation to specialize rdfs:Class by means of
owl:Class.

To cite the authors of the OWL Reference Guide
[http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/]:

"owl:Class is defined as a subclass of rdfs:Class. The rationale for
having a separate OWL class construct lies in the restrictions on OWL DL
(and thus also on OWL Lite), which imply that not all RDFS classes are
legal OWL DL classes. In OWL Full these restrictions do not exist and
therefore owl:Class and rdfs:Class are equivalent in OWL Full."

Instead, the subclass relationship as defined by RDFS (rdfs:subclassof) is
neither too powerful for OWL (as the rdfs:Class resource is) neither too
poor, indeed its semantics ("A is a subclass of B if and only if the set
of individuals ext(A) denoted by A is a subset of the set of individuals
ext(B) denoted by B) remains applicable and unchanged, no matter whether A
and B are "rdfs:Class"es or "owl:Class"es. Thus, there is no need to
introduce a specialized "owl:subclassOf" property and this is why, indeed,
such a specialized property does not exist.

In general, the reason why you have an "owl:" version for some resources,
and not for some others, is that in some cases the original ones are not
"suited" for OWL (rdfs:Class, for instance, is too "powerful", it has too
few semantic conditions attach and does not constrain the legal
interpretation to a degree that is compatible with the definition of a
"Class" in OWL).



Another important thing in answering your questions is the following: you
should not deduce that you are "using OWL" from the mere fact that the
"owl:" prefix appears in your document, and viceversa you should not think
that in order to "use OWL" you need to add "owl:" prefix somewhere in your
document. Your document, "a priori", is just a set of statements written
in RDF syntax with resource names coming from a given vocabulary (say OWL,
RDFS, no matter what ...). It is the fact that *the program you use to
answer your questions over that document* is aware of the semantic
conditions attached to those terms by the definition of OWL, or RDFS, etc,
and produces entailments according to those conditions, that really tells
you that OWL is being "used". The source of confusion might be that it is
often implicitly assume that documents containing a resource name coming
 from the "owl:" namespace are "reasoned" over by OWL-aware programs.

So, in the end, the answer to your question "If I want to get the full use
of Owl advantages is there a need to also use RDF/RDFS properties in the
ontology?" is "no".

I'm not sure whether this post was clear enough, so if you have some
refined questions I will try to answer in the best way I can.

Regards,

Andrea


On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:06:06 +0100, Raj M Verma <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> hi,
>
> the discussion between Andrea and Paul on Owl/RDF/RDFS properties is
> really
> very informative... I wud like to ask one more question regarding the
> relation amoung these three different types of properties...
>
> In the Pizza Ontology, most of the properties are of the Owl type, but
> the
> "subClassOf" properties is of the RDFS type... why is this so? is it
> because
> there is no possibility of using "owl:subClassOf" property, or is there
> any
> advantage of using this rdfs type for "subClassOf" property even if
> there is
> a possibility of using "owl:subClassOf"?
>
> If I want to get the full use of Owl advantages is there a need to also
> use
> RDF/RDFS properties in the ontology?
>
> thanq,
> Raj.






-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: descriptive logic based ontology

Andrea Proli
Paul,
your post seems to embrace more than a single point, so I will address for  
the moment the most specific and easy-to-answer issue. I will try to  
explain why there is confusion between (paths of) subclassing and  
instantation, with some example, and to frame the problem into the context  
of W3C Semantic Web languages.

Indeed, a class A being instance of another class B is a completely  
different thing than just a subclass of B. Set theory is usuful to grasp  
the difference: "subclass" means "subset", while "instance" means "member  
of" a set. So, a set A can be a *member* of another set B, and in that  
case you would have that the class having A as its extension is an  
*instance* of a class having B as its extension; a different situation is  
when a set A is a *subset* of another set B, and then you have that a  
class having A as its extension is a *subclass* of a class having B as its  
extension...

For example. The class "Dog", whose extension is the set of all dogs, is  
an instance of the class "Species", whose extension is the set of all  
species. At the same time, the class "Dog" is a subclass of "Animal",  
because elements that belong to the set of all "Dog"s also belong to the  
set of all "Animal"s. An example which I found in a Software Engineering  
book from Meilir Page-Jones (although I don't remember the title at the  
moment) is extremely helpful in shedding light on the real difference  
between a class being an instance of another class, and a class being a  
subclass of another class: in natural language, it sounds quite acceptable  
to say that "panda is a protected species", and that "panda is also a  
bear" (ok, a panda is not a bear, but please forgive this imprecision I'm  
not a zoologist). So, since the "IS-A" expression is frequently regarded  
as a synonym for "subclass-of", one could think that

PANDA subclassOf PROTECTED_SPECIES .
PANDA subclassOf BEAR .

is a correct modeling, as long as (s)he does not ask what properties  
actually describe the instances of the two superclasses of PANDA:  
PROTECTED_SPECIES, and BEAR. In fact, while the former is probably  
described by properties like "number of individuals, average age", and so  
on, the latter is described by "color of fur, height, age, number of  
children", and so on. Now, the mismatch is more evident... an instance of  
PROTECTED_SPECIES is a set of individuals, while an instance of BEAR is a  
single individual! But, since an instance of PANDA is both an instance of  
PROTECTED_SPECIES and an instance of BEAR (due to the two subclass  
relationships) what an instance of PANDA is? An individual, or a set of  
individuals? Confusion is due to the fact that "IS-A" can be both  
understood as "IS-SUBCLASS-OF" and "IS-INSTANCE-OF", even if the two  
relationships have completely different semantics (for example, the former  
is transitive, the latter is not!), and you have to disambiguate this...  
So, the correct modelling, is:

PANDA instanceOf PROTECTED_SPECIES
PANDA subclassOf BEAR

And here, PANDA is a class which is an instance of another class  
(PROTECTED SPECIES) and at the same time a subclass of another class  
(BEAR), but the two things are quite different... again, like in set  
theory.

Another interesting issue regards the fact that instantiation and  
subclassing are strongly coupled. Actually, subclassing is always "hidden  
behind" instantiation, and instantiation is always "hidden behind"  
subclassing... but that is not the topic of this post. Those who are  
familiar with UML could be interested in developing a discussion about the  
so-called "powertypes" (Dirk?).

Now, let's go back to our W3C stuff. In RDF, RDFS and OWL-Full, you can  
have that a class is an instance of another class. This is expressible.  
However, in OWL-DL and OWL-Lite those patterns are not allowed because of  
computability issues. More generally, all Description Logics (of which  
OWL-DL and OWL-Lite are syntactic variants) are founded on First Order  
Logics, and thus are not able to represent that. There, you have a strong  
dichotomy between what is an instance an what is a class, what is an  
element of a set and what is a set, what is an individual and what is a  
category; this means that you cannot have a class that is also an instance  
of another class. RDF, RDFS and OWL-Full allow to express that, but then  
you have no warranties that a program taking into account all of the  
semantic conditions of OWL-Full will always answer in a finite time to  
your questions.

Unfortunately, Paul, I know less than nothing about gene and cell  
expression, so I can't tell you what is suited for your purposes. Can you  
tell me where can I find a couple of relatively short papers (if possible)  
so that I get introduced to the description of those phenomena at a very  
high-level perspective?

And, what do you mean by "n-articulated ontology"? Ontology with n-ary  
relations instead of binary properties, or perhaps ontologies where you  
can have classes as instances of other classes, in turn instances of other  
classes, and so on, for n times?

Thank you, and sorry if my last question sounds a little stupid ;-) I'm  
actually a heathen.

Andrea

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:21:05 +0100, Paul S Prueitt  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Please excuse the cross posting to both Protege forums.  I would like to
> know precisely where this discussion belongs; but perhaps it belongs to  
> both
> the Protege-Discussion (which is supported to be about protege-frames
> (derived from CLIPS but not derived from KIF), and Protege-Owl - which is
> specific to Owl.  Advise on how to address both forums is requested.  
> (You
> can post this privately to me.)
>
>
>
> Just for clarification.  An class instance of a class, A, is not the  
> same as
> a sub-class of class A.
>
> Is this true?  I do not always get these types of things correct.
>
> I think that it is ture, according to "all" ? descriptive logics.
>
> This turns out to be an important feature of the DL based ontologies.  
> The
> paradigm is often that individuals are treated quite differently than
> "classes".  This seems correct, from one point of view.  However, the  
> nature
> of ...  hum..  this goes into something called natural category theory,  
> but
> perhaps I can say this right.
>
> <side remark>
>
> The nature of "natural category" formation (such as in cell, gene or  
> social
> expression) and the nature of linguistic category formation (which is
> derivitive of the other forms of biological expression) treats instances  
> of
> a particular in two ways; first as the thing itself and second as part  
> of a
> "system" of functional types related to the role that the instance plays  
> in
> a specific instance.  This is called "double articulation" in  
> linguistics,
> and degeneracy in cell and gene signal pathway expression.  My group is
> working on a means based on Soviet era "applied semiotics" for a
> n-articulated ontological framework.
>
> But, and this is important if the work on "n-articulated ontology" is to  
> be
> understood...  the DL based ontologies create a spable "finite state
> machine" where some aspects not achievable in the object oriented data
> object definitions cannot achieve.  So in principle, the n-articilated
> ontological framework should produce a DL based ontology, and the
> translation of a DL based ontology to a object oriented data object (or
> system of objects like the SOA IM).
>
> <end side remark>
>
> I appologize if I said this poorly.  Clearly issues now being worked on
> regarding the goals of a web service request must take n-articulation  
> into
> account, somehow.
>
>
> so back to the class instance discussion.
>
>
>  There is no doubt that DL based ontology has to have some ackwardness  
> if it
> is to remain true to descriptive logics.  The issue that many of us are
> addressing is the translation of data specifications made in UML and  
> object
> oriented type information models and standards (such as the ISO 11179 and
> the SOA - IM).  The larger issue is the development of control interfaces
> using information model based standards when DL based ontological models  
> are
> also "linked".
>
> In this case, one has to ask what is "something", that is instanced.  
> What
> is the meaning of something that is defined as an instance.  
> Functionally,
> anything "specific", ie an instance, that serves a purpose is in fact  
> both
> an instance and treated as if a class, ie a category.   The nature of
> "serving a purpose"
>
> This is precisely where the structure to function relationship arise,  
> with
> the many to many mapping in natural systems.  In gene and cell expression
> ontology this many to many expression property is called "degeneracy" by
> leading scientists, such as Gerald Edelman.
>
> Andrea's assistance in teasing out the properties of RDF, RDFS, and the  
> DL
> based ontology is very valable to all of us.  Of course protege frames  
> is a
> DL (descriptive logic) based ontology , as is the three or four forms of  
> OWL
> (Lite, DL, Full, and S ?)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Andrea Proli
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:26 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [protege-owl] Re: RDF, OWL and Protege frames - thank you
>
>
> Hi Raj,
> I am afraid the important issues here can not be explained in a few words
> because it seems to me that you are a little confused and you probably
> would need an extended answer, which unfortunately I do not have time to
> write at the moment. But still, I try to give you an intuitive  
> explanation
> through an example.
>
>
>
> Consider the differences between owl:Class and rdfs:Class. OWL  
> "overrides"
> the rdfs:Class resource by additionally defining an owl:Class resource
> (though, it would better be qualified as "owl-dl:Class" in my humble
> opinion) because not all RDFS classes are valid OWL classes, and this is
> due to the fact, among the others, that classes in RDFS can be instances
> of other classes, while in OWL-DL and OWL-lite this is forbidden. Thus,
> there is a precise motivation to specialize rdfs:Class by means of
> owl:Class.
>
> To cite the authors of the OWL Reference Guide
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/]:
>
> "owl:Class is defined as a subclass of rdfs:Class. The rationale for
> having a separate OWL class construct lies in the restrictions on OWL DL
> (and thus also on OWL Lite), which imply that not all RDFS classes are
> legal OWL DL classes. In OWL Full these restrictions do not exist and
> therefore owl:Class and rdfs:Class are equivalent in OWL Full."
>
> Instead, the subclass relationship as defined by RDFS (rdfs:subclassof)  
> is
> neither too powerful for OWL (as the rdfs:Class resource is) neither too
> poor, indeed its semantics ("A is a subclass of B if and only if the set
> of individuals ext(A) denoted by A is a subset of the set of individuals
> ext(B) denoted by B) remains applicable and unchanged, no matter whether  
> A
> and B are "rdfs:Class"es or "owl:Class"es. Thus, there is no need to
> introduce a specialized "owl:subclassOf" property and this is why,  
> indeed,
> such a specialized property does not exist.
>
> In general, the reason why you have an "owl:" version for some resources,
> and not for some others, is that in some cases the original ones are not
> "suited" for OWL (rdfs:Class, for instance, is too "powerful", it has too
> few semantic conditions attach and does not constrain the legal
> interpretation to a degree that is compatible with the definition of a
> "Class" in OWL).
>
>
>
> Another important thing in answering your questions is the following: you
> should not deduce that you are "using OWL" from the mere fact that the
> "owl:" prefix appears in your document, and viceversa you should not  
> think
> that in order to "use OWL" you need to add "owl:" prefix somewhere in  
> your
> document. Your document, "a priori", is just a set of statements written
> in RDF syntax with resource names coming from a given vocabulary (say  
> OWL,
> RDFS, no matter what ...). It is the fact that *the program you use to
> answer your questions over that document* is aware of the semantic
> conditions attached to those terms by the definition of OWL, or RDFS,  
> etc,
> and produces entailments according to those conditions, that really tells
> you that OWL is being "used". The source of confusion might be that it is
> often implicitly assume that documents containing a resource name coming
>  from the "owl:" namespace are "reasoned" over by OWL-aware programs.
>
> So, in the end, the answer to your question "If I want to get the full  
> use
> of Owl advantages is there a need to also use RDF/RDFS properties in the
> ontology?" is "no".
>
> I'm not sure whether this post was clear enough, so if you have some
> refined questions I will try to answer in the best way I can.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrea
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:06:06 +0100, Raj M Verma <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> the discussion between Andrea and Paul on Owl/RDF/RDFS properties is
>> really
>> very informative... I wud like to ask one more question regarding the
>> relation amoung these three different types of properties...
>>
>> In the Pizza Ontology, most of the properties are of the Owl type, but
>> the
>> "subClassOf" properties is of the RDFS type... why is this so? is it
>> because
>> there is no possibility of using "owl:subClassOf" property, or is there
>> any
>> advantage of using this rdfs type for "subClassOf" property even if
>> there is
>> a possibility of using "owl:subClassOf"?
>>
>> If I want to get the full use of Owl advantages is there a need to also
>> use
>> RDF/RDFS properties in the ontology?
>>
>> thanq,
>> Raj.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'

Ronnie Valkky
In reply to this post by samsontu
Hi,

The following are just questions to understand  the sentence  "we set up the
policy of manually moderating messages":

Question 1:  "we"  Which organisation/legal entity/company.. does this "we"
present ?
Question 2.  Who is in charge ?

Does this "policy of manually moderating messages" mean:
Question 3.  you might modify the Subject line ?
Question 4. you may modify email content ?
Question 5. something else, what ?

Question 6. Could your "policy of manually moderating messages " cause
situations where senders
email end up in threads about a different topic ?

cheers,
Ronnie,
legal notice: http://www.icewaves.com/0000/legal_email_waves.html


This email was generated by replying to the following message:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samson Tu" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:56 PM
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'


> Hi,
>
> We set up the policy of manually moderating messages posted to
> protege-discussion that contains the "OWL" keyword because, previously,
> too many OWL-specific questions were being posted to the
> protege-discussion list. We believe that direction of messages to the
> appropriate forum is a service to the community and not a form of
> censorship.
>
> Your question about appropriate use of
>
>  >owl:ObjectProperty
>  >owl:DatatypeProperty
>  >and
>  >rdf:Property
>
> is something that can be best answered by one who has a good knowledge
> of OWL. I think the moderator made the right call to suggest that you
> post it here.
>
> Samson
>
> Paul S Prueitt wrote:
> >
> > there are issues that cross the category of "protege-owl" or
protege-frames.
> > I would prefer to allow the individual making the post to determine
which
> > forum to post to.
> >
> > there is similarities and differences related to the two group's focus.
My

> > question applied to both the owl side and the non owl side..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Ronald
> > Cornet
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:50 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [protege-owl] Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'
> >
> >
> > At 08:05 08-02-06 -0700, Paul Prueitt wrote:
> >
> >>I respectfully request that a moderator not block my posts to either
> >>protege-owl or protege because I am a leading researcher in this field
and
> >
> > I
> >
> >>maintain that I have professional intentions to each of my posts.  I am
an
> >>American citizen.
> >
> >
> > There is a simple if-then rule in play.
> > If [message contains the OWL] then it should not be directed to the
> > protege-discussion list but to protege-owl.
> >
> > That is not a matter of censorship, but rather a great feature, in order
to
> > get the right mails at the right mailing lists.
> > There are many among us, leading researcher or not, who mistakenly post
to
> > the wrong list.
> >
> > As the benefit is prevention of having to receive many
> > unwanted/inappropriate mails , and the cost is that occasionally a mail
> > gets blocked (NOT censored), the benefit largely outweighs the
disadvantage.
> >
> > I think it is unfair to accuse anyone of censorship because of the
actual
> > content of the message, as this is definitely not the case.
> > It is a mere matter of great moderation, in which large efforts are
being
> > invested. So thanks to Ted Hopper!
> >
> > Ronald
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe go to
http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
> >
> >
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe go to
http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Samson Tu                    email: [hidden email]
> Senior Research Scientist    web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
> Stanford Medical Informatics phone: 1-650-725-3391
> Stanford University          fax: 1-650-725-7944
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'

samsontu
Hi,

Ronnie Valkky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following are just questions to understand  the sentence  "we set up the
> policy of manually moderating messages"

What I said was

"We set up the policy of manually moderating messages posted to
protege-discussion that contains the "OWL" keyword." Only a few messages
get flagged for re-direction; otherwise messages go straight to their
destinations.

It's an effort to direct OWL-related messages to the protege-OWL mailing
list so that they have the best chance to get responses.

>
> Question 1:  "we"  Which organisation/legal entity/company.. does this "we"
> present ?

The protege group at Stanford.

> Question 2.  Who is in charge ?

The protege group, as the sponosor of the mailing lists, set up the policy.

>
> Does this "policy of manually moderating messages" mean:
> Question 3.  you might modify the Subject line ?

No.
> Question 4. you may modify email content ?

No.
> Question 5. something else, what ?

Nothing. The only action is the direction of OWL messages to the
protege-owl forum.

>
> Question 6. Could your "policy of manually moderating messages " cause
> situations where senders
> email end up in threads about a different topic ?

No.

>
> cheers,
> Ronnie,
> legal notice: http://www.icewaves.com/0000/legal_email_waves.html
>
>
> This email was generated by replying to the following message:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Samson Tu" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:56 PM
> Subject: [protege-owl] Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'
>
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>We set up the policy of manually moderating messages posted to
>>protege-discussion that contains the "OWL" keyword because, previously,
>>too many OWL-specific questions were being posted to the
>>protege-discussion list. We believe that direction of messages to the
>>appropriate forum is a service to the community and not a form of
>>censorship.
>>
>>Your question about appropriate use of
>>
>> >owl:ObjectProperty
>> >owl:DatatypeProperty
>> >and
>> >rdf:Property
>>
>>is something that can be best answered by one who has a good knowledge
>>of OWL. I think the moderator made the right call to suggest that you
>>post it here.
>>
>>Samson
>>
>>Paul S Prueitt wrote:
>>
>>>there are issues that cross the category of "protege-owl" or
>
> protege-frames.
>
>>>I would prefer to allow the individual making the post to determine
>
> which
>
>>>forum to post to.
>>>
>>>there is similarities and differences related to the two group's focus.
>
> My
>
>>>question applied to both the owl side and the non owl side..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: [hidden email]
>>>[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Ronald
>>>Cornet
>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:50 AM
>>>To: [hidden email]
>>>Subject: [protege-owl] Re: FW: Message submitted to 'protege-discussion'
>>>
>>>
>>>At 08:05 08-02-06 -0700, Paul Prueitt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I respectfully request that a moderator not block my posts to either
>>>>protege-owl or protege because I am a leading researcher in this field
>
> and
>
>>>I
>>>
>>>
>>>>maintain that I have professional intentions to each of my posts.  I am
>
> an
>
>>>>American citizen.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is a simple if-then rule in play.
>>>If [message contains the OWL] then it should not be directed to the
>>>protege-discussion list but to protege-owl.
>>>
>>>That is not a matter of censorship, but rather a great feature, in order
>
> to
>
>>>get the right mails at the right mailing lists.
>>>There are many among us, leading researcher or not, who mistakenly post
>
> to
>
>>>the wrong list.
>>>
>>>As the benefit is prevention of having to receive many
>>>unwanted/inappropriate mails , and the cost is that occasionally a mail
>>>gets blocked (NOT censored), the benefit largely outweighs the
>
> disadvantage.
>
>>>I think it is unfair to accuse anyone of censorship because of the
>
> actual
>
>>>content of the message, as this is definitely not the case.
>>>It is a mere matter of great moderation, in which large efforts are
>
> being
>
>>>invested. So thanks to Ted Hopper!
>>>
>>>Ronald
>>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>To unsubscribe go to
>
> http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>>>
>>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>To unsubscribe go to
>
> http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Samson Tu                    email: [hidden email]
>>Senior Research Scientist    web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
>>Stanford Medical Informatics phone: 1-650-725-3391
>>Stanford University          fax: 1-650-725-7944
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>


--
Samson Tu                    email: [hidden email]
Senior Research Scientist    web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
Stanford Medical Informatics phone: 1-650-725-3391
Stanford University          fax: 1-650-725-7944
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html