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

Re: ontology for rough set theory

From: Birte Glimm <bglimm@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:52:49 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b1002081052y1b49cc68o3e914ebeab87d4bd@mail.gmail.com>
To: taraAthan@gmail.com
Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
> 4. Hermit looks interesting - at present, it looks like Hermit and Protege
> are mutually exclusive choices for me?  That is, from what have  seen on the
> list , OWL ontologies that include DL Safe Rules cannot be opened in  P4?
>  And property-chains are not compatible with P3 or Hermit 0.9.x, right?   So
> if I go with Hermit and use both property chains and DL Safe rules, then the
> ontology can only be opened in stand-alone Hermit 1.x? (These are all
> questions, I may have drawn wrong conclusions from what I read).

Tara, I am not sure whether Protege supports DL safe rules or not. You
could download the custom compiled Protege 4.1 that comes with HermiT
as a plug-in from HermiT's website (http://www.hermit-reasoner.com)
and give it a try. The HermiT 0.9.x versions do neither support DL
safe rules nor property chains. We hope that Protege 4.1 is soon
officially released because all 1.x versions of HermiT use the OWL API
3, which provides full OWL 2 support.
Best regards,
Birte Glimm

> Tara
> Uli Sattler wrote:
>> Dear Tara,
>> it seems to me as if you could be modeling things much more
>> straightforwardly in OWL, but first, could you let us know exactly what kind
>> of rought sets you want to implement:
>> is A and notA disjoint?
>> does not being a member of A imply being a member of notA?
>> then, you might want to look into OPPL and rest assured, the Fact++
>> implementors know about it crashing P4, and are working on it. Pellet or
>> Hermit are alternative reasoners.
>> Cheers, Uli
>> On 7 Feb 2010, at 22:09, Tara Athan wrote:
>>> I have built an ontology for rough sets (hasMember and
>>> hasComplementMember are not disjoint or covering) with properties such
>>> as hasSubset and hasComplement.
>>> I am using Protege 4 and Fact++.
>>> I found out from the beginning about the restrictions on complex role
>>> inclusions, but
>>> I thought I would be able to  implement inference in one direction at
>>> least (A hasSubset B entails certain things about the members of A & B,
>>> where A,B are individuals sets) using  property chains. This worked for
>>> hasSubset. The reverse direction (inferring A hasSubset B from
>>> assertions about its members) I was able to implement using general
>>> class axioms, inserting nominal classes and then duplicating the axioms
>>> for all individual sets in the ontology.
>>> But I was unable to implement hasComplement in this way: I had to resort
>>> to general class axioms on nominal sets even for the first direction.
>>> So I have a couple of questions:
>>> 1. This seems like it would be an ubiquitous issue in any situation
>>> dealing with sets, collections etc.  Are there any existing ontologies
>>> that address these issues so I could see how other people have dealt
>>> with it?
>>> 2. Duplicating all those general class axioms is tedious, and I am only
>>> considering it as a place holder for DL-Safe SWRL rules, or as a pattern
>>> for an interface using OWL API. Are there any other options (tools) that
>>> would make this easier on me?
>>> 3. P4 and Fact++ are driving me nuts because Fact++ crashes P4 every two
>>> or three times that it runs, so I am constantly restarting P4. Any
>>> suggestions for other tools would be welcome.
>>> Thanks, Tara

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 18:53:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:18 UTC