W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2014

RE: dependency analysis of OWL axioms

From: Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@mitre.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:52:52 +0000
To: Pavel Klinov <pavel.klinov@uni-ulm.de>
CC: Leila Bayoudhi <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FDFBC56B2482EE48850DB651ADF7FEB0353421D0@IMCMBX04.MITRE.ORG>
Sure, but I do think that is generally very useful, even if it is syntactic. 

Or are you meaning that because first-order logic is semi-decidable it is not useful to represent axioms and theorems as graphs? I.e., ultimately, that a graph-dependency analysis of an ontology is not useful?

Thanks,
Leo

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pavel Klinov [mailto:pavel.klinov@uni-ulm.de]
>Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:17 PM
>To: Obrst, Leo J.
>Cc: Pavel Klinov; Leila Bayoudhi; semantic-web@w3.org
>Subject: Re: dependency analysis of OWL axioms
>
>On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@mitre.org> wrote:
>> Pavel,
>>
>> How is a GCI not representable as a graph? I understand that all OWL
>ontologies can be represented as graphs, by definition into RDF graphs. Do you
>mean something else?
>
>In you read my first reply to you carefully, you will see that I did
>acknowledge it:
>
>"Of course, one can invoke the OWL2RDF mapping and take the resulting
>set of triples as a (kind of) graph, but I doubt it can be generally
>useful."
>
>But what are you going to do with that graph then?
>
>Cheers,
>Pavel
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leo
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Pavel Klinov [mailto:pavel.klinov@uni-ulm.de]
>>>Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 5:08 AM
>>>To: Obrst, Leo J.
>>>Cc: Pavel Klinov; Leila Bayoudhi; semantic-web@w3.org
>>>Subject: Re: dependency analysis of OWL axioms
>>>
>>>On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>> Thanks, Pavel.
>>>>
>>>> My question is about your comment:
>>>>
>>>> "OWL is quite a rich language and one can write very complex axioms
>which
>>>don't look anything graph-like."
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
>>>
>>>For example, in OWL 2 DL one can take all (class) axioms and re-write
>>>all that into a single long GCI.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Pavel
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Leo
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Pavel Klinov [mailto:pavel.klinov@uni-ulm.de]
>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:59 PM
>>>>>To: Obrst, Leo J.
>>>>>Cc: Leila Bayoudhi; semantic-web@w3.org
>>>>>Subject: Re: dependency analysis of OWL axioms
>>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>> We had proposed this a number of years ago, but never had time to go
>>>down
>>>>>that path. More towards trying to infer "integrity constraints" dynamically
>>>(yes,
>>>>>OWL is Open World; integrity constraints are Closed World). Finding the
>>>ripple
>>>>>effect of deleting, adding, moving graph nodes that kind of corresponds to
>>>>>"referential integrity" (i.e., structural) in the database world. Since all OWL
>>>>>ontologies (the axioms) can be represented as graphs, it should be doable.
>>>How
>>>>>efficiently, I don't know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd be very, very cautious with statements like "OWL axioms can be
>>>>>represented as graphs". In what precisely sense can they be
>>>>>represented as graphs? OWL is quite a rich language and one can write
>>>>>very complex axioms which don't look anything graph-like. Of course,
>>>>>one can invoke the OWL2RDF mapping and take the resulting set of
>>>>>triples as a (kind of) graph, but I doubt it can be generally useful.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can imagine that for some very specific tasks, like decomposition
>>>>>(as in [1]), a graph-based representation of OWL axioms can be
>>>>>helpful. But such use cases (and the corresponding representations)
>>>>>tend to be pretty specific rather than generic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Pavel
>>>>>
>>>>>[1] Francisco Martín-Recuerda, Dirk Walther: Axiom Dependency
>>>>>Hypergraphs for Fast Atomic Decomposition of Ontologies. Description
>>>>>Logics 2014: 299-310
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Leo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: Leila Bayoudhi [mailto:bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr]
>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 6:36 AM
>>>>>>>To: semantic-web@w3.org
>>>>>>>Subject: dependency analysis of OWL axioms
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hello
>>>>>>>I want to know if there is a tool or an approach realizing dependency
>>>>>annalysis
>>>>>>>of OWL 2 axioms.
>>>>>>>Example:
>>>>>>>by removing a subClassOf axioms , I want to know affected ones in the
>>>>>>>ontology.
>>>>>>>Or, can I do it manually by recognizing different types of axioms and
>>>>>expecting
>>>>>>>relations between them.
>>>>>>>Thank you for answering me.
>>>>>>>--398296598-735493131-1415964971=3759
>>>>>>>Content-Type: text/html; charset=f-8
>>>>>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-
>>>>>>>family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande,
>>>sans-
>>>>>>>serif;font-size:16px"><div>Hello</div><div>I want to know if there is a
>>>tool
>>>>>or
>>>>>>>an approach realizing dependency annalysis of OWL 2
>>>>>>>axioms.</div><div>Example:&nbsp;</div><div>by removing a
>subClassOf
>>>>>>>axioms , I want to know affected ones in the ontology.</div><div>Or,
>can I
>>>>>do it
>>>>>>>manually by recognizing different types of axioms and expecting
>relations
>>>>>>>between them.</div><div>Thank you for answering
>>>>>>>me.</div></div></body></html>
>>>>>>>--398296598-735493131-1415964971=3759--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2014 20:53:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:55 UTC