Bernhard, I think that what you need in N3 syntax should look like the following: ex:ThingMadeByMan a owl:Restriction ; owl:equivalentClass [ owl:onProperty ex:madeBy ; owl:allValuesFrom ex:Man ] . Cheers, Irene Irene Celino CEFRIEL - ICT Institute Politecnico di Milano Via Fucini, 2 - 20133 Milano (Italy) phone: +39 0223954266 fax: +39 0223954466 email: Irene.Celino@cefriel.it web: http://www.cefriel.it, http://swa.cefriel.it Looking for a service? Try Service-Finder at http://demo.service-finder.eu! 2009/6/25 Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk> > > On 25 Jun 2009, at 11:12, Bernhard Schandl wrote: > > Hi, >> >> What you want to say is that *if something is madeby a Man (and possibly >>> by some other things), then this something is a ThingMadeByMan. >>> >> >> exactly. >> >> So there direction of the implication needs to go the other way round an >>> you need existential (someValues) restriction... in Manchester Syntax: >>> >>> Class: ThingMadeByMan >>> EquivalentTo: >>> madeBy some Man >>> >> >> I'm not too familiar with Manchester Syntax, is this equivalent to (n3): >> >> ex:ThingMadeByMan >> a owl:Restriction ; >> owl:onProperty ex:madeBy ; >> owl:someValuesFrom ex:Man ; >> . >> >> ... because I tried this one, but stil the implication >> >> > hm, I'm not familiar with n3 syntax -- but i know that, in OWL, we have > both "SubClassOf" and "EquivalentClass" statements -- and that it is > important to distinguish the two...namely, if you say that X and Y are > equivalent classes, then this has the same consequences as saying that X is > a subclass of Y and Y is a subclass of X. > > Now, in your example, you want to infer *from* something being made by men > that something is a ThingMadeByMan...for which you need the implication > 'from right to left'...or in both directions. > > This axiom together with your 2 assertions above about Bart and Something >>> should then imply that Something is ThingMadeByMan >>> >> >> is not derived by Pellet. :-( >> >> Also I wonder what a reasoner can actually infer from owl:someValuesFrom >> -- as far as I can tell from the spec [1] it can actually only be used to >> check the consistency of a model, but not to infer new facts, since the >> reasoner cannot decide which of the (possibly many) values of the property >> is an instance of the specified class. >> > > I am not sure where this impression came from -- but its wrong, you can > infer new facts: did you try your example? In your example, you have > *stated* that Bart is a Man and that Something is madeby Bart; hence we (and > the reasoner, too) can infer that Something is madeBy a Man and thus, if we > also defined (!) things madeBy a Man to be ThingMadeByMan, then we (and > the reasoner) can infer that Something is a ThingMadeByMan. > > Cheers, Uli > > > > Am I missing something here? >> > > Best, Bernhard >> >> > >Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 13:26:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:00 GMT