W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: some x has only y

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:21:07 +0000
Message-Id: <126DDE61-A539-40BF-BBBA-AC27104D00A2@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Matthew Pocock" <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>

On 13 Mar 2008, at 13:54, Matthew Pocock wrote:

>>> However, while this gets arround the problems with the a-box
>>> approach, this
>>> has introduced a new named class with a necesarily ugly name.
>> Is it? Do you need the name? Not in OWL. You can write:
>> 	causes some "karaoke singing experience < "beer drinking experience"
>> directly.
> Doesn't this imply that every "karaoke singing experience" is  
> caused by a
> "beer drinking experience"?

Yep, too strong.

> So, let's say that sometimes karaoke is caused
> by being polite to visitors. Something more like this would seem to be
> closer:
>   intersection(causes some "karaoke singing experience" "beer drinking
> experience") < OWL:Thing

Yep, that's what I should have written.

> I don't know how to get statements like this into Protege, although  
> the
> xml encoding is obvious.

I don't see a way either. You need a bit in class descriptions  
"subclasses" to do the trick...maybe there's some secret way to do  
it. I see a view "General Class Axioms" but can't get it to do  
anything :) (It will *display* things with complex LHSs, but it won't  
let me *enter* them in this version.)

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 14:19:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC