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

Re: All humans love (all) cats

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 15:41:45 +0100
Cc: Markus Krötzsch <markus.kroetzsch@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <96B39779-D5F8-43C0-8A14-535C586975F2@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
On 2 Oct 2010, at 14:22, Adrian Walker wrote:

> Hi Markus & All --
> As mentioned off-list to Markus, one can do this rather simply in the system online at the site below as follows:
> some-person is a human being
> some-animal is a cat
> ------------------------------------------------
> that-person loves that-animal          
> So my question is please, what advantages does does the more complicated method in OWL have?  

It captures the domain, whereas I'm betting that thethe above does not.

> Please note that I'm a newbie where OWL is concerned, and just a bit puzzled about what the conceptual complexity overhead may buy.

In first order logic it's syntactically similar (i.e., from http://korrekt.org/papers/RudolphKroetzschHitzer_DL-Concept-Product_TR_2008.pdf ):
	∀(x).∀y.Elephant(x) ∧ Mouse(y) → biggerThan(x, y)
the challenge is to encode it so that 1) it's in a decidable logic and 2) it is reasonably close in meaning. This includes constraining individuals not mentioned in the theory and thus making some classes unsatisfiable simply vian. (e.g.,) existential restrictions. As I recall, your system is logic programming based and constrains the value of variables to named individuals. Thus, it merely approximates what we're trying to encode. An analogous approximation can be achieved with DL Safe rules.

Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 14:42:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:19 UTC