W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

Fw: Reflexivity and antisymmetry uses cases?

From: Christine Golbreich <Christine.Golbreich@univ-rennes1.fr>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:21:16 +0100
Message-ID: <008b01c73a18$d77391d0$8101a8c0@LUZ>
To: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

Hi Holger

> extra features may be more driven by theoretical advances in DL
> reasoners than by real user requirements

1)You may find several of these requirements in different papers that I
presented at various workshops/conf since 2003 (sorry to advertise)
- most of them concern biomedical applications in the field of Brain Imaging
or Anatomy (see those papers in more details, most are available online on
my page) for example:
- ISWC 2003
- W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/64/
* this paper points to an annex still available online at
http://idm.univ-rennes1.fr/~obierlai/anatomy/annexes/annexes.pdf
* you can find examples that may be represented by RIA, but other require
rule extensions
*  the same annex provides examples of reflexivity and p. 7
examples of *irreflexive and antisymmetric* properties, but as the
constructs did not exist in OWL we used rules to express it instead
IMO, it seems that such axioms are rather ontological knowledge
about properties than rule knowledge about "inference".
So their place is rather in the ontology component than in the rule
component
- symmetry, transitivity etc is extensively used in the FMA (IMO not a toy
ontology), see
C. Golbreich, S. Zhang, O. Bodenreider
Foundational Model of Anatomy in OWL: experience and
perspectives, Journal of Web Semantics, Web Semantics: Science,
Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 181-195
(see in the paper URL of part of the ontology which  is online)
- papers at OWLED 2005, OWLED 2006 etc etc.
2)  you may also refer to the OBO ontology under design
http://obofoundry.org/ro/
3)> OWL as a ivory tower language.  During my time in the Protege community
> and even more so at TopQuadrant, I don't remember anyone asking for
> reflexivity and antisymmetry.

Are you sure for example that in the ontology developped by Olivier et al.
in Virtual Soldier (the Protégé - DARPA project ) they did not have such
things ?

best

Christine


----- Original Message -----
From: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com>
To: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Reflexivity and antisymmetry uses cases?


>
> Thanks for these example use cases.  I have also received another one in
> a private email, plus the one from Pierluigi.  Makes so far three groups
> who are interested in this.
>
> While I see that a lot of OWL properties could be made irreflexive and
> antisymmetric, I wonder about what the ontology users would get out of
> it.  Would they expect to get different inference results, or would the
> extra information act as constraints to validate user input, or what else?
>
> On a more general level, I am a bit concerned that the addition of these
> extra features may be more driven by theoretical advances in DL
> reasoners than by real user requirements.  Let's face it, we have a
> trade-off here if we add more and more features to a language that a lot
> of people already find much too complex: while some users may argue that
> they need the additional expressiveness, these additional features also
> increase the learning curve, implementation overhead, and perception of
> OWL as a ivory tower language.  During my time in the Protege community
> and even more so at TopQuadrant, I don't remember anyone asking for
> reflexivity and antisymmetry.  Maybe the people of this list have more
> use cases to show?
>
> Holger
>
>
> John Goodwin wrote:
> >> we are looking into the user interface requirements that will
> >> be needed to support OWL 1.1. Toward this end, we are
> >> interested in understanding the use cases in support of the
> >> various new features of OWL 1.1.  I can easily make sense of
> >> user-defined datatypes and QCRs, but I don't think I had seen
> >> a lot of examples for some of the other proposed features so
> >> far (except for toy ontologies):
> >>
> >>   - owl:SelfRestriction
> >>   - owl:IrreflexiveProperty
> >>   - owl:AntiSymmetricProperty
> >>
> >> If you know of a published list of use cases (either formal
> >> or informal), or if you have your own use case for any of
> >> these features, I would be interested in seeing them.
> >
> > Holger,
> >
> > It is argued that reflexivity is required when modelling mereology. See
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html
> >
> >
> > I think these properties of OWL 1.1 could certainly have applications in
> > the geospatial domain. For example we might want to say that all rivers
> > flow into rivers, seas or lakes but they cannot flow into themselves. I
> > guess we could do this as follows:
> >
> > River -> flowsInto some (River or Sea or Lake) and not flowsInto Self
> >
> > Many topological relationships (for example those of RCC8) would be
> > irreflexive and antisymmetric.
> >
> > These properties might also be useful in modelling topology with some
> > notion of orientation. Properties such as "northOf", "eastOf", "leftOf",
> > "above" etc. would be antisymmetric and antisymmetric.
> >
> > As we experiment more with OWL1.1 I can probably come up with more
> > examples.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr John Goodwin
> > Research Scientist
> > Research Labs, Ordnance Survey
> > Room C530, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
> > Phone: +44 (0) 23 8030 5756 | Mobile: +44 (0) 7xxx xxxxxx | Fax: +44 (0)
> > 23 8030 5072
> > www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | john.goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk
> > Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
> > email.
> > .
> >
> >
> > This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and
may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in
error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be
copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.
> >
> > Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the
writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can
any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the
right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.
> >
> > Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> > Ordnance Survey
> > Romsey Road
> > Southampton SO16 4GU
> > Tel: 08456 050505
> > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 09:21:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT