- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:21:07 +0000
- To: "Matthew Pocock" <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>
On 13 Mar 2008, at 13:54, Matthew Pocock wrote: > >>> However, while this gets arround the problems with the a-box >>> approach, this >>> has introduced a new named class with a necesarily ugly name. >> >> Is it? Do you need the name? Not in OWL. You can write: >> >> causes some "karaoke singing experience < "beer drinking experience" >> >> directly. > > Doesn't this imply that every "karaoke singing experience" is > caused by a > "beer drinking experience"? Yep, too strong. > So, let's say that sometimes karaoke is caused > by being polite to visitors. Something more like this would seem to be > closer: > > intersection(causes some "karaoke singing experience" "beer drinking > experience") < OWL:Thing Yep, that's what I should have written. > I don't know how to get statements like this into Protege, although > the > xml encoding is obvious. I don't see a way either. You need a bit in class descriptions "subclasses" to do the trick...maybe there's some secret way to do it. I see a view "General Class Axioms" but can't get it to do anything :) (It will *display* things with complex LHSs, but it won't let me *enter* them in this version.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 14:19:40 UTC