W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: OWL class restriction

From: Thomas Schneider <schneidt@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:00:50 +0000
Cc: Alessandro Maccagnan <maccagnan@math.unipd.it>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, Erika Feltrin <erika.feltrin@cribi.unipd.it>
Message-Id: <0BE46765-73A0-4C96-AFC0-7DBB1E615A13@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>

On 14 Jan 2010, at 08:50, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

> Hi Thomas, Alessandro,
>
> Doesn't your (2) violate the global constraints on complex  
> properties? You cannot have cardinality constraints on complex  
> properties (such as chains and transitive properties).

Oops ... *blush*

Sorry

Thomas

> I myself have struggled with these kinds of modelling problems while  
> working on my PhD. Chapter 7 of my dissertation describes ways of  
> 'coping' with the limitations of OWL 2. See [1,2] if you're  
> interested.
>
> Best,
>
> Rinke
>
> [1] http://www.leibnizcenter.org/~hoekstra/wordpress/
> [2] http://dare.uva.nl/document/144868
>
> On 13 jan 2010, at 20:04, Thomas Schneider wrote:
>
>> Oh, just now I've read Uli's email properly ... and her suggestion  
>> shows that this three-variable statement might be possible. Would  
>> it be enough for your purposes if you say the following?
>>
>> (1) The composition of has_action_goal and inverse(has_object_goal)  
>> implies has_object
>> (2) Every action can have at most one object (Action subClassOf  
>> has_object max 1 Thing)
>> (3) All individuals of type object are distinct
>>
>> If (2) clashes with your scenario, it seems to me that you will  
>> need closed world reasoning.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2010, at 17:52, Thomas Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alessandro,
>>>
>>> On 13 Jan 2010, at 11:09, Alessandro Maccagnan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Uli,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your reply.
>>>> We are trying to define a propertyChain but we realize that what  
>>>> we need to say is as follows.
>>>>
>>>> defining these properties:
>>>> Action has_object Some Object
>>>> Action has_action_goal Some Goal
>>>> Object has_object_goal Some Goal
>>>>
>>>> at the individuals level we would like to say:
>>>>
>>>> a1 has_action_goal g1
>>>> o1 has_object_goal g1
>>>> o2 has_object_goal g2
>>>> =>
>>>> a1 CAN HAVE has_object o1
>>>>
>>>> BUT
>>>> a1 CANNOT HAVE has_object o2
>>>>
>>>> So this means that only the objects (o) that have the same goal  
>>>> (g) of the
>>>> action (a) can be used in that action.
>>>
>>> I don't think that this can be said in OWL because you will have  
>>> to say that every individual x that is related to an individual y  
>>> via has_object must also have another link to y via the chain  
>>> has_action_goal o inverse(has_object_goal). This statement  
>>> requires three variables in first-order logic, hence it's unlikely  
>>> that it can be expressed in OWL. (Or does anyone here see a clever  
>>> trick?) You might be more lucky with a rule language, but that is  
>>> not my domain.
>>>
>>> Second, together with the rule you stated in your last sentence,  
>>> the ontology you gave is not sufficient to conclude that a1 cannot  
>>> have o2 as an object: the individuals g1 and g2 can be the same,  
>>> and actions and objects are not prevented from having other goals  
>>> than the ones stated. You will at least have to make all  
>>> individuals different and close the "some" restrictions with  
>>> corresponding "only" restrictions. Even then, the open world  
>>> assumption might play a trick on you in the cases where you  
>>> haven't said anything about certain individuals, so you might  
>>> require closed world reasoning here.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Alessandro
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Uli Sattler  
>>>> <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> Hi Alessandro,
>>>>
>>>> this is a tricky think to be done. What you can do is use a  
>>>> propertychain to ensure that
>>>>
>>>> the composition of  has_object with has_Goal implies has_Goal.
>>>>
>>>> This would require the usage of a dedicated 'has_Goal' (rather  
>>>> than a less specific has_information) property, but this  
>>>> shouldn't be a problem (make has_information a superproperty of  
>>>> has_Goal if you like).
>>>>
>>>> Does this suffice? Cheers, Uli
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Jan 2010, at 14:54, Alessandro Maccagnan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> we are developing an ontology for the description of a general  
>>>> Action structure. The Action Structure is composed of:
>>>>
>>>> Subject (that performs the action)
>>>> Object_complement (that undergoes the action)
>>>> Complement (that helps in the execution of the action)
>>>> Goal of Action (the effect of the action)
>>>>
>>>> We have already defined that:
>>>>
>>>> Action has_information one Goal_of_action
>>>> Action has_object some Object
>>>> Object is_object_in some Action
>>>> Object has_information some Goal_of_action (because an object can  
>>>> be used in several distinct actions)
>>>>
>>>> Now we would like to say that an Action can have as its objects  
>>>> only those that have the same goal of the related action.
>>>>
>>>> Action has_object some Object where Object.Goal=Action.Goal
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately we are stuck because we do not know how to  
>>>> formalize it in OWL. Does anybody have any suggestions to help us?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Alessandro Maccagnan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Alessandro
>>>> Maccagnan
>>>
>>> + 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>> |  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at)  
>>> cs.man.ac.uk  |
>>> |  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt 
>>>   |
>>> |  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161  
>>> 2756136  |
>>> |  University of  
>>> Manchester                                            |
>>> |  Oxford Road                                             _/// 
>>> _       |
>>> |  Manchester M13 9PL                                       
>>> (o~o)       |
>>> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)-- 
>>> OOOo--+
>>>
>>> Jubones (pl.n.)
>>> Awful things bought in Nairobi which never look good at home.
>>>
>>>                Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> + 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> |  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at)  
>> cs.man.ac.uk  |
>> |  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ 
>> ~schneidt  |
>> |  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161  
>> 2756136  |
>> |  University of  
>> Manchester                                            |
>> |  Oxford Road                                             _/// 
>> _       |
>> |  Manchester M13 9PL                                       
>> (o~o)       |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)-- 
>> OOOo--+
>>
>> Jubones (pl.n.)
>> Awful things bought in Nairobi which never look good at home.
>>
>>                 Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk  |
|  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt  |
|  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161 2756136  |
|  University of Manchester                                            |
|  Oxford Road                                             _///_       |
|  Manchester M13 9PL                                      (o~o)       |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+

Jubones (pl.n.)
   Awful things bought in Nairobi which never look good at home.

                   Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff





Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 12:01:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:57 GMT