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

Re: Question on special class description

From: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:21:11 +0000
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <493BA711-26DF-45C8-A872-8A328140B766@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Thomas Schneider <schneidt@CS.MAN.AC.UK>, Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Isn't this a variant of the "all-all" question - Uli's "Cat-lovers"  
problem

- e.g.

"All people with driving licenses are authorised to drive all cars"

It is just turning it into an equivalence class statment:

"All people authorised to drive all cars" equivalent to "People with  
driving licenses"

replace "authorised to drive all cars" with "loves all children"

and you are close.

That it has to be his child complicates it a bit, but it is part of  
the same family of problems,
which we know have no simple solution in OWL DL.
We know this can only be done with awkward constructions involving  
individuals.

Alan

On 23 Feb 2010, at 19:10, Thomas Schneider wrote:

> Hi Lennart,
>
> I can only see two ways, and they lead out of OWL-DL, but perhaps  
> someone else here has a better idea?
>
> (1) If you use Boolean operators on roles, you can define a new role  
> hasChildButDoesNotLoveIt to be "hasChild and not loves". You can  
> then define the desired class as GoodParent =  
> hasChildButDoesNotLoveIt only Nothing.
>
> (2) If you define a new property p to be a superproperty of the  
> chain "hasChild o inv(loves)", then you can define a GoodParent to  
> be equivalent to not p some Self. Unfortunately, only simple object  
> property expressions are allowed in hasSelf restrictions and p is  
> composite due to the first statement.
>
> I suppose this doesn't really help ... :-S
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas
>
> On 23 Feb 2010, at 15:35, Lennart Bierkandt wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am developing an ontology for a linguistic typological database,  
>> where I need to describe a class of the form:
>> { x | ∀y( r1(x,y) -> r2(x,y) ) }
>> As explaining the real use of this would be to complicated, imagine  
>> a class denoting e.g. "people who love (r2: loves) all their  
>> children (r1: hasChild) (or haven't any)".
>>
>> In prose it doesn't seem to be too complex, but I didn't find a way  
>> to do it..
>> CAN this be expressed in OWL-DL? and if, how? (and if not, in OWL- 
>> FULL?)
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Lennart Bierkandt
>>
>>
>>
>
> + 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |  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--+
>
> Tampa (n.)
>  The sound of a rubber eraser coming to rest after dropping off a desk
>  in a very quiet room.
>
>                  Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>
>
>
>
>
>

-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6149/6188
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector
www.co-ode.org
http://clahrc-gm.nihr.ac.uk/
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 14:21:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:58 GMT