- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:30:10 +0000
- To: Thomas Schneider <schneidt@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>, Alessandro Maccagnan <maccagnan@math.unipd.it>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, Erika Feltrin <erika.feltrin@cribi.unipd.it>
...but do you really need (2)? I think having all the rest should do the trick? Cheers, Uli On 14 Jan 2010, at 12:00, Thomas Schneider wrote: > > 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 12:30:34 UTC