W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Defining properties between classes

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:58:12 +0000
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <AB2D8D10-94B5-4AC4-9074-277FFF1512EB@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Loris Bozzato <loris.bozzato@uninsubria.it>

Hello,

On 31 Jan 2009, at 03:22, Loris Bozzato wrote:
[snip]
> I'd like to model the fact that every instance of a class C has as  
> value of the property P every instance of a class D.

Really? Where D is unconstrained (i.e., may have arbitrary members)?

I've having trouble understanding why one would want this to the point  
of having trouble thinking of solutions! Could you describe your  
representational problem?

> In other words, I'm looking for something analogous to the hasValue  
> restriction, in which, in place of declaring the relation to a  
> single individual, I could declare the relation to every individual  
> belonging to a certain class.

You mean, something like,
	D = oneOf (:x, :y, ;z).
	x != y != z.
	C = P min 3 D.

(So, every C has to have a P relation to x, y, and z.)

But where you don't want to put in a set of values for D and don't  
want to have to know its cardinality in advance?

[snip]
>  for example, how can I express that a specific class of diseases  
> can affect any (kind of) tooth?

Oh, this seems different. This seems to be the "may" problem. See:
	http://www.webont.org/owled/2008/papers/owled2008eu_submission_14.pdf

My student, Pavel, and I are working on some probability based  
approaches to coping with the semantics Alan wants.

I guess the first question is...are these the semantics *you* want?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 09:58:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:56 GMT