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

Re: Inferencing more specific roles

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:19:06 +0100
Message-Id: <DDE32DFA-7A72-461A-901D-AAE0997DEB68@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Andrew Gibson <a.p.gibson@uva.nl>

On 11 Aug 2008, at 14:35, Andrew Gibson wrote:
> In this case, the Property hierarchy looks like:
> hasChild	(range Person)
> 	hasDaughter	(subPropertyOf hasChild, range FemalePerson)
> 	hasSon		(subPropertyOf hasChild, range Maleperson)
> In this case I was investigating how Theoretical Datasource 1, that  
> states for each individual:

My first, reflexive response is "DL Safe Rules", since you are  
aligning data.

> Gender 		(as MalePerson or FemalePerson)
> Children	(as hasChild)
> could be integrated with another Theoretical Datasource 2, that uses:
> Gender		(not asserted, only Person)
> Children	(as hasSon and hasDaughter  Genders inferred)
> Simply put, the problem with directly integrating these is that in  
> the Datasource 1, given the Class assertions:
> Vera instanceOf FemalePerson
> Jane instanceOf FemalePerson
> Vera hasChild Jane
> It does not seem possible to infer the more specific relationship:
> Vera hasDaughter Jane
> that would make the data directly comparable to the representation  
> of Datasource 2.

You might be able to use the following trick:
Which would give you a stronger result (i.e., class subsumptions)  
than the corresponding DL Safe rule.

Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 14:16:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:17 UTC