Re: Inferencing more specific roles

Funnily enough it seems that the other way (not kids, but parents) it is
 indeed possible.

Given the TBox:
DisjointUnion( Person Male Female )
PropertyRange( mother Female )
PropertyRange( father Male )
SubPropertyOf( mother parent )
SubPropertyOf( father parent )
DisjointProperties( mother father )
SubClassOf( Person ExactCardinality( 2 parent ))
SubClassOf( Person ExactCardinality( 1 mother ))
SubClassOf( Person ExactCardinality( 1 father ))

>From the ABox:
PropertyAssertion( parent Betty Adam )
ClassAssertion( Male Adam )

Now the following does follow:
PropertyAssertion( father Betty Adam )

Using the OWL2 Syntax from here:
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Semantics>

This is due to the interplay of cardinalities and ranges.
Or am I wrong?

denny

(thanks to Sebastian Rudolph who checked the claim briefly, since my DL
is not so great)

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> On 11 Aug 2008, at 14:35, Andrew Gibson wrote:
> [snip]
>> In this case, the Property hierarchy looks like:
>>
>> hasChild    (range Person)
>>     hasDaughter    (subPropertyOf hasChild, range FemalePerson)
>>     hasSon        (subPropertyOf hasChild, range Maleperson)
> [snip]
>> In this case I was investigating how Theoretical Datasource 1, that
>> states for each individual:
> 
> My first, reflexive response is "DL Safe Rules", since you are aligning
> data.
> 
>> Gender         (as MalePerson or FemalePerson)
>> Children    (as hasChild)
>>
>> could be integrated with another Theoretical Datasource 2, that uses:
>>
>> Gender        (not asserted, only Person)
>> Children    (as hasSon and hasDaughter – Genders inferred)
>>
>> Simply put, the problem with directly integrating these is that in the
>> Datasource 1, given the Class assertions:
>>
>> Vera instanceOf FemalePerson
>> Jane instanceOf FemalePerson
>> Vera hasChild Jane
>>
>> It does not seem possible to infer the more specific relationship:
>>
>> Vera hasDaughter Jane
>>
>> that would make the data directly comparable to the representation of
>> Datasource 2.
> [snip]
> 
> You might be able to use the following trick:
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/22
> Which would give you a stronger result (i.e., class subsumptions) than
> the corresponding DL Safe rule.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 15:40:38 UTC