[protege-owl] property antonyms - complementOf

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

[protege-owl] property antonyms - complementOf

Deirdre Lee

 

Hi,

 

I was wondering if it is possible to create property antonyms in Protégé.

 

For example:

 

A loves B

A hates B

 

Now, irrelevant to what A and B are, I want to define that if an individual A loves B, then we can infer that A does not hate B.

Similarly, if A does not love B, we can infer that A hates B.

 

I want to define that property ‘loves’ is the complementOf property ‘hates’.

 

Is this possible?

 

Thanks,

Deirdre

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: property antonyms - complementOf

Ulrike Sattler
Hi,

in DLs in general, complementation of properties
have proven dangerous, and are rarely considered.
In OWL, there is no mechanism to declare 
complementation of properties or such like. 
In OWL 1.1, however,  there will be a slightly weaker 
version: DisjointProperties! If you declare "loves" and 
"hates" as disjoint, then A loves B implies that A does 
not hate B, and A hates B implies that  that A does not 
love B. 

I think this should solve this problem since I do not love Celine, yet this doesn't mean that I hate her: I just don't know her! 

Cheers, Uli
 
On 16 Aug 2006, at 16:31, Deirdre Lee wrote:

 

Hi,

 

I was wondering if it is possible to create property antonyms in Protégé.

 

For example:

 

A loves B

A hates B

 

Now, irrelevant to what A and B are, I want to define that if an individual A loves B, then we can infer that A does not hate B.

Similarly, if A does not love B, we can infer that A hates B.

 

I want to define that property ‘loves’ is the complementOf property ‘hates’.

 

Is this possible?

 

Thanks,

Deirdre



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] AW: property antonyms - complementOf

Rajverma
In reply to this post by Deirdre Lee

I don’t think this is possible with the current OWL… As per Uli’s feedback (dated 11.08.2006) :

 

I know that most of them are working on it and, eg, Fact++ already supports DisjointProperties() and Irreflexive in properties (and complex property inclusions, etc.!) -- yet it might not yet be supported by the OWL API -- but it should be soon.

Cheers, Uli

 

we have to wait for a while…

 

Cheers,

Raj

 


Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Deirdre Lee
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. August 2006 17:32
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: [protege-owl] property antonyms - complementOf

 

 

Hi,

 

I was wondering if it is possible to create property antonyms in Protégé.

 

For example:

 

A loves B

A hates B

 

Now, irrelevant to what A and B are, I want to define that if an individual A loves B, then we can infer that A does not hate B.

Similarly, if A does not love B, we can infer that A hates B.

 

I want to define that property ‘loves’ is the complementOf property ‘hates’.

 

Is this possible?

 

Thanks,

Deirdre

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: property antonyms - complementOf

Hugo Ferreira
In reply to this post by Ulrike Sattler
Hello,

Just curious...

Uli Sattler wrote:

> Hi,
>
> in DLs in general, complementation of properties
> have proven dangerous, and are rarely considered.
> In OWL, there is no mechanism to declare
> complementation of properties or such like.
> In OWL 1.1, however,  there will be a slightly weaker
> version: DisjointProperties! If you declare "loves" and
> "hates" as disjoint, then A loves B implies that A does
> not hate B, and A hates B implies that  that A does not
> love B.

Couldn't we simply use a "closure restriction" or "closure axiom" for this?

>
> I think this should solve this problem since I do not love Celine, yet
> this doesn't mean that I hate her: I just don't know her!
>

Wouldn't a "closure axiom" have the same effect as the above?

TIA,
Hugo Ferreira.


> Cheers, Uli
>  
> On 16 Aug 2006, at 16:31, Deirdre Lee wrote:
>
>>  
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  
>>
>> I was wondering if it is possible to create property antonyms in Protégé.
>>
>>  
>>
>> For example:
>>
>>  
>>
>> A /loves/ B
>>
>> A /hates/ B
>>
>>  
>>
>> Now, irrelevant to what A and B are, I want to define that if an
>> individual A /loves/ B, then we can infer that A /does not hate/ B.
>>
>> Similarly, if A /does not love/ B, we can infer that A /hates/ B.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I want to define that property ‘/loves’/ is the complementOf property
>> ‘/hates’/.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Is this possible?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: property antonyms - complementOf

helen.chen

Hi, Hugo

Also just curious....

What your "closure axiom" might look like? Can you give an example pertaining this "love-hate" relationship?

Thanks.

Helen



Hugo Ferreira <[hidden email]>
Sent by: [hidden email]

08/17/2006 11:53 AM

Please respond to
[hidden email]

To
[hidden email]
cc
Subject
[protege-owl] Re: property antonyms - complementOf






Hello,

Just curious...

Uli Sattler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in DLs in general, complementation of properties
> have proven dangerous, and are rarely considered.
> In OWL, there is no mechanism to declare
> complementation of properties or such like.
> In OWL 1.1, however,  there will be a slightly weaker
> version: DisjointProperties! If you declare "loves" and
> "hates" as disjoint, then A loves B implies that A does
> not hate B, and A hates B implies that  that A does not
> love B.

Couldn't we simply use a "closure restriction" or "closure axiom" for this?

>
> I think this should solve this problem since I do not love Celine, yet
> this doesn't mean that I hate her: I just don't know her!
>

Wouldn't a "closure axiom" have the same effect as the above?

TIA,
Hugo Ferreira.


> Cheers, Uli
>  
> On 16 Aug 2006, at 16:31, Deirdre Lee wrote:
>
>>  
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  
>>
>> I was wondering if it is possible to create property antonyms in Protégé.
>>
>>  
>>
>> For example:
>>
>>  
>>
>> A /loves/ B
>>
>> A /hates/ B
>>
>>  
>>
>> Now, irrelevant to what A and B are, I want to define that if an
>> individual A /loves/ B, then we can infer that A /does not hate/ B.
>>
>> Similarly, if A /does not love/ B, we can infer that A /hates/ B.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I want to define that property ‘/loves’/ is the complementOf property
>> ‘/hates’/.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Is this possible?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>

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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: property antonyms - complementOf

Hugo Ferreira
Hi Helen,

[hidden email] wrote:
>
> Hi, Hugo
>
> Also just curious....
>
> What your "closure axiom" might look like? Can you give an example
> pertaining this "love-hate" relationship?
>

Two comments:

1) I have just realized what was being discussed in the original post is
not related to my comments (my mistake). Their the issue was relative to
properties and _not_ classes. My apologies for the confusion.

2) I should also have said "covering axiom" ([1], page 75). In this case
I would create something like:
Classes:
        - LoveAndHate
        - Love
        - Hate

I would then state that:
Class( LoveAndHate
        Necessary and Sufficient Restriction( Love "Union" Hate ) )

Just an idea: I saw some discussion on the use of reification to define
attributes to properties. Maybe this technique can also allow us to use
the "covering axiom" as described above in regards to properties.

Regards,
Hugo Ferreira.

[1] http://www.co-ode.org/resources/tutorials/ProtegeOWLTutorial.pdf


> Thanks.
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> *Hugo Ferreira <[hidden email]>*
> Sent by: [hidden email]
>
> 08/17/2006 11:53 AM
> Please respond to
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
> To
> [hidden email]
> cc
>
> Subject
> [protege-owl] Re: property antonyms - complementOf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Just curious...
>
> Uli Sattler wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > in DLs in general, complementation of properties
>  > have proven dangerous, and are rarely considered.
>  > In OWL, there is no mechanism to declare
>  > complementation of properties or such like.
>  > In OWL 1.1, however,  there will be a slightly weaker
>  > version: DisjointProperties! If you declare "loves" and
>  > "hates" as disjoint, then A loves B implies that A does
>  > not hate B, and A hates B implies that  that A does not
>  > love B.
>
> Couldn't we simply use a "closure restriction" or "closure axiom" for this?
>
>  >
>  > I think this should solve this problem since I do not love Celine, yet
>  > this doesn't mean that I hate her: I just don't know her!
>  >
>
> Wouldn't a "closure axiom" have the same effect as the above?
>
> TIA,
> Hugo Ferreira.
>
>
>  > Cheers, Uli
>  >  
>  > On 16 Aug 2006, at 16:31, Deirdre Lee wrote:
>  >
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> Hi,
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> I was wondering if it is possible to create property antonyms in
> Protégé.
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> For example:
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> A /loves/ B
>  >>
>  >> A /hates/ B
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> Now, irrelevant to what A and B are, I want to define that if an
>  >> individual A /loves/ B, then we can infer that A /does not hate/ B.
>  >>
>  >> Similarly, if A /does not love/ B, we can infer that A /hates/ B.
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> I want to define that property ‘/loves’/ is the complementOf property
>  >> ‘/hates’/.
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> Is this possible?
>  >>
>  >>  
>  >>
>  >> Thanks,
>  >>
>  >> Deirdre
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>

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