- From: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:05:25 -0500
- To: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- CC: holger@topquadrant.com, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 1/20/07 9:44 AM, Michael Schneider wrote: > > Holger Knublauch wrote on Wed, 17 Jan 2007: > >> I don't remember a lot of requests for something > > like owl:SelfRestriction on our mailing lists. > > And AFAICS, nobody here in this thread has given an example for > SelfRestrictions, yet. I thought about it yesterday evening for a > while, but could not come up with any serious example. Well, besides > this standard toy class of "SelfLovers", wherein property "loves" is > thought to behave transitively. ;-) > > It's easier for me to imagine that antisymmetry and ireflexivity could > become important, because, in combination with transitivity, I am able > to more precisely model all kinds of partial orderings between > instances, like e.g. ancestor relationships between people or events, > or inclusion relationships like "locatedIn"/"containedIn" between > geographical regions. > > But where is the "killer application" for owl11:SelfRestriction? I'm not sure if you are only referring to SelfRestriction (local reflexivity) or ReflexiveProperty (global reflexivity) in general. I think it was mentioned earlier that reflexivity is used to describe part/whole relationships [1]. I don't know if this would be the "killer application" for reflexivity but it is certainly a widely used one. If you are asking about why we would want to use SelfRestriction instead of ReflexiveProperty then I can give a real-world example explaining this: One might be inclined to define foaf:knows property to be a ReflexiveProperty (similar to your loves example) because you want to model that every foaf:Person knows himself/herself. However, adding this innocent looking statement to FOAF vocabulary would make concept such as foaf:Document, foaf:Organization, foaf:Project unsatisfiable and any FOAF description that describes instances of these concepts would end up to be inconsistent. The reason is simple: When you say a property is a ReflexiveProperty then every individual in the universe should have that property. This means if you have an instance of foaf:Document, say MyDocument, then we infer that MyDocument knows itself. But the domain/range restrictions on foaf:knows says only foaf:Person's can have foaf:knows property. Since foaf:Document is disjoint with foaf:Person this would be a contradiction. The right thing to do in this case would be to use SelfRestriction construct to define a local reflexivity axiom for foaf:Person. Regards, Evren [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ > > Michael > >
Received on Sunday, 21 January 2007 17:05:35 UTC