W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Describing Trees in OWL?

From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:10:46 +0100
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <67B623C0-29DD-4ACF-8D60-F56144958D78@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Stephan Opfer <stephan.opfer@gmx.net>
Hi Stephan, I think we can get a rather good approximation of a tree  
by saying the following:

hasChild is a subproperty of hasOffSpring

hasOffSpring is transitive

every offSpring of  the root node (i.e., an indiviual called root) has  
at most one incoming hasChild edge
(you can also say this for everything in the universe - but that would  
be a bit strong)

if a node has no incoming hasChild edge, then it is the root node

...now, if you want a (strict) binary tree you need to add further  
cardinality restrictions on outgoing hasChild edges.

Cheers, Uli

On 31 May 2012, at 09:40, Stephan Opfer wrote:

> Hello,
> I recently noticed, that although the model of an owl axiom should  
> have
> tree property, it is not possible to describe a tree data structure in
> OWL. The way I would model it, is to create a class Node and a  
> property
> hasChild and make the hasChild property transitive and irreflexive,
> which is not allowed in OWL-DL, because transitive properties are no
> simple properties.
> I searched a bit on w3c websites and their citations and also made
> another post on the protege-owl mailing
> list:protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system. 
> 136.n4.nabble.com/Tree-Paradox-of-OWL-td4655163.html
> Someone told me, that I should post this question here, too.
> You don't have to read the other post. Here is a summary of my
> observations and the resulting question to this mailing list.
> On website [0] the restriction about composite object properties are
> described and [1] is cited for given the reason for these  
> restrictions.
> However, [1] states about irreflexivity combined with transitivity:
> "For SROIQ and the remaining restrictions to simple roles in concept
> expressions as well as role assertions, it is part of future work to
> determine which of these restrictions to simple roles is strictly
> necessary in order to preserve decidability or practicability. This
> restriction, however, allows a rather smooth integration of the new
> constructs into existing algorithms."
> So my question is: Has someone proven, that the restrictions about
> transitivity and irreflexivity can be loosen? Otherwise, OWL cannot
> describe a tree data structure on "schema level".
> Best Regards,
>  Stephan
> [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#The_Restrictions_on_the_Axiom_Closure
> [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~sattler/publications/sroiq-TR.pdf
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:10:31 UTC

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