Re: OWL Best Practice "value sets"

>Thorsten
>
>Thanks for the comment.   I am pleased you found the note useful.
>
>However, I don't think I agree.
>
>I think your method is based on a misunderstanding of the semantics 
>of individuals.  As I understand it, the semantic of OWL mean that 
>the only way your example can be interpreted is if some of the 
>values are actually SAME individuals.  Individuals cannot be split 
>and cannot overlap; they are either the same or different.

Yes, and the issue can be forced by asking about the cardinality of 
the set. In Thorsten's example, there is one class with two 
descriptions, one giving it a cardinality of 3. So the description of 
the same class as oneOf a list of 5 items requires that in two cases, 
two of those names must in fact denote the same individual. Given the 
other conditions stated, one can infer that

owl:sameAs good_health reasonable-good-health .
owl:sameAs good_health very_good-health .

and similarly for the poor health cases.

Pat

>
>If you put in allDifferents for each of the sets of individuals - 
>the obvious meaning of "partitioning" - the example is unsatisfiable.
>
>Regards
>
>Alan
>
>On 25 Apr 2006, at 10:02, Thorsten Liebig wrote:
>
>>Dear Alan,
>>
>>I recently read into the "Representing Specified Values in OWL"
>>document. The
>>best practice effort is very useful and strongly needed in order to help
>>non-sophisticated
>>users in the course of developing OWL ontologies.
>>
>>I have two remarks on pattern 1 (values as sets of individuals).
>>Within the fourth item of your considerations you state that there is
>>"no way to represent
>>alternative partitionings of the same feature space". This is misleading
>>to a certain point.
>>It is indeed possible to extend a given partitioning in a way that
>>allows more fine-graded
>>nuances or to merge subsets (unless you state that your initial
>>partitioning is allDifferent).
>>Below there is an excerpt which extends the example you give (a merged
>>document exists
>>at
>>http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Liebig/owl/values-as-individuals-01.owl):
>>
>><owl:Class>
>>    <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
>>           <Health_Value rdf:about="#good_health"/>
>>           <Health_Value rdf:about="#medium_health"/>
>>           <Health_Value rdf:about="#poor_health"/>
>>    </owl:oneOf>
>>    <owl:equivalentClass>
>>       <owl:Class>
>>          <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
>>          <owl:Thing rdf:ID="very_good_health"/>
>>          <owl:Thing rdf:ID="reasonable_good_health"/>
>>          <owl:Thing rdf:ID="about_medium_health"/>
>>          <owl:Thing rdf:ID="somewhat_poor_health"/>
>>          <owl:Thing rdf:ID="extremly_poor_health"/>
>>          </owl:oneOf>
>>       </owl:Class>
>>    </owl:equivalentClass>
>>  </owl:Class>
>>
>><rdf:Description rdf:about="#medium_health">
>>   <owl:sameAs rdf:resource="#about_medium_health"/>
>>   <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#very_good_health"/>
>>   <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#reasonable_good_health"/>
>>   <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#somewhat_poor_health"/>
>>   <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#extremly_poor_health"/>
>></rdf:Description>
>>
>><rdf:Description rdf:about="#poor_health">
>>   <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#very_good_health"/>
>>   <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#reasonable_good_health"/>
>></rdf:Description>
>>
>><rdf:Description rdf:about="#good_health">
>>   <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#somewhat_poor_health"/>
>>   <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="#extremly_poor_health"/>
>></rdf:Description>
>>
>><Person rdf:about="#Jim">
>>   <has_health_status rdf:resource="#reasonable_good_health"/>
>></Person>
>>
>>Now, Jim is also a "Healthy_person".
>>
>>I also suggest to relax your last item since at least FaCT++ and Pellet
>>now offer reasoning
>>with nominals (which is acceptable in most cases).
>>
>>Regards
>>Thorsten
>
>-----------------------
>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/mig
>www.clinical-esciences.org
>www.co-ode.org


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2006 15:50:30 UTC