- From: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:07:03 -0400
- To: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@kit.edu>
- Cc: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>, "public-owl-comments@w3.org" <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
> Well, put into model theoretic terms > (1) the "some" version requires all models to satisfy that every > teenager must have an age (and furthermore this age must be in a certain > range), whereas > (2) the "all" version allows for models that have teenagers who do not > have any age associated to them, because the "all" axiom would not be > violated by ageless teenagers. > To me, variant (1) seems to be more appropriate. +1 Certainly, adding functionality makes sense. But then the goal here was not to make a complete ontology, but to exemplify the constructs. Best Regards, Pascal. On 10/3/2012 12:04 PM, Sebastian Rudolph wrote: > Hi Axel, > >> >> Hi Sebastian, >> >>> As far as your suggestion to use "all" instead of "some" is >>> concerned, this would not convey the intended semantics since >>> then all individuals which are *not* in a hasAge relation to >>> any value would be classified as teenagers (mind the somewhat >>> unintuitive interpretation of the "all"). >> >> Why? If you refer to the last example in >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-primer-20091027/#Advanced_Use_of_Datatypes >> "Teenager" is declared as a *subclass* of those with some (or as I >> suggest 'all') ages between 13 and 19. > > Very good point. In my answer I was assuming the classes had been > specified as equivalent (which would probably be more adequate). > I still advocate the "some" in the current modeling but I have to modify > my argument a little. > >> In the "all" reading, all I could infer is IMO that someone with an >> age out of that range would be inferred *not* to be a >> Teenager (which I find quite intuitive, but which wouldn't work for >> the "some" reading), right? > It *would* work for the "some" reading if "hasAge" is specified to be > functional according to the following reasoning: > xyz hasAge 55 =(hasAge is functional)=> xyz has not any Age other than > 55 => xyz has not any Age between 13 and 19 => xyz is not a Teenager > > Indeed, it would not work without the functionality axiom. > >> So, I don't really get it (maybe an embarrassing, temporary >> brain-malfunctioning :-) but happy to learn where my mistake is). >> >>> (mind the somewhat >>> unintuitive interpretation of the "all"). >> >> Can you elaborate? > Well, put into model theoretic terms > (1) the "some" version requires all models to satisfy that every > teenager must have an age (and furthermore this age must be in a certain > range), whereas > (2) the "all" version allows for models that have teenagers who do not > have any age associated to them, because the "all" axiom would not be > violated by ageless teenagers. > To me, variant (1) seems to be more appropriate. > > Best regards, > Sebastian > > >> >> (BTW, I am happy to take this discussion to another, more >> adequate list, if this is not the right place, as mentioned >> earlier, this is not intended as a formal comment to the spec) >> >> Axel >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sebastian Rudolph [mailto:rudolph@kit.edu] >>> Sent: Mittwoch, 03. Oktober 2012 12:01 >>> To: Polleres, Axel >>> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> >>> Subject: Re: question on primer example >>> >>> Hi Axel, >>> >>> it might be better to refer to the current version of the >>> primer, i.e. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-primer-20091027/ >>> If you take the mentioned snippet per se, you are right, it >>> allows for persons having more than one age. However if you >>> also specify the axiom >>> >>> FunctionalDataProperty( :hasAge ) >>> >>> it defines :hasAge to be functional and hence allows only one >>> age per individual. If you assume this axiom, then the >>> definition of Teenager via "some" is perfectly fine. >>> As far as your suggestion to use "all" instead of "some" is >>> concerned, this would not convey the intended semantics since >>> then all individuals which are *not* in a hasAge relation to >>> any value would be classified as teenagers (mind the somewhat >>> unintuitive interpretation of the "all"). >>> >>> Best, >>> Sebastian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 03.10.2012 um 09:19 schrieb Polleres, Axel: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have some question on the primer example on DataRanges, cf. >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-primer-20080411/#Adatarange >>>> >>>> The prose text says >>>> "For example, we might have Teenager as those people whose >>> age is an integer that is at least 13 but less than 20, Adult >>> as those people whose age is at least 21, and Child as those >>> people whose age is in the complement of adult ages." >>>> >>>> Class: Teenager EquivalentClass: Person and hasAge some >>> integer[>= 13 >>>> , < 20] >>>> Class: Adult EquivalentClass: Person and hasAge some integer[>= 21] >>>> Class: Child EquivalentClass: Person and not ( hasAge some >>> integer[>= >>>> 21] ) >>>> >>>> As it stands, this seems to allow several ages per person - >>> one of which is in the defined range. >>>> IMO, it would be more intuitive to use for the first two >>> lines "all" instead of "some" here plus stating that age is >>> functional (each person has exactly one age, wouldn't it? >>>> >>>> Not a big deal nor meant as a formal comment, but just to >>> note and ask for some opinion from the group or explanation >>> why you got to formulate the example like that. >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> Axel Polleres >>>> >>>> Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Oesterreich CT RTC BAM CON-AT >>>> Siemensstrasse 90 1210 Vienna, Austria >>>> Tel.: +43 51707-36983 >>>> Mobile: +43 664 88550859 >>>> mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com >>>> >>>> Company Name: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Oesterreich; Legal Form: >>>> Stock Corporation; Company Seat: Vienna; Register Number: >>> FN 60562 m; >>>> Registered at: Commercial Court Vienna; DVR-Number: 0001708 >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> PD Dr. Sebastian Rudolph >>> senior researcher & project leader at AIFB Karlsruhe >>> Institute of Technology (KIT) >>> rudolph@kit.edu <mailto:rudolph@kit.edu> phone +49 >>> 721 608 - 47362 >>> www.sebastian-rudolph.de <http://www.sebastian-rudolph.de> fax >>> +49 721 608 - 45998 >>> >>> > > _________________________________________________ > PD Dr. Sebastian Rudolph > senior researcher & project leader at AIFB > Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) > rudolph@kit.edu <mailto:rudolph@kit.edu> phone +49 > 721 608 - 47362 > www.sebastian-rudolph.de <http://www.sebastian-rudolph.de> fax > +49 721 608 - 45998 > -- Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH pascal@pascal-hitzler.de http://www.knoesis.org/pascal/ Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 18:07:31 UTC