Re: Modeling a specific construct - please help

OK, here is demo example at:
http://www.masfak.ni.ac.rs/ontologies/2009/8/process_demo.owl

What's bothering me is, without going deeper into semantics of used terms:

1. Why RDQL "suceeds min 2 Activity" do not return Activity_3, and "suceeds
some Activity" does ?
2. Why Activity_1 isConcurrentWith Activity_2 (and Activity_1
isConcurrentWith Activity_1, in this case) is not inferred ?
3. Is there another way to axiomatize this relationship (although semantics
of used terms is not actually precise, you are right, Uli, but I hope you
get what I want to achieve) ?

Thanks for your help,
Milan

2009/9/11 Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>

>
> On 11 Sep 2009, at 15:21, Milan Zdravkovic wrote:
>
>  Thanks Uli !
>>
>> 2009/9/11 Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
>> this is a difficult one:
>>
>> - I assume that Ab, B, and C are individuals, and that 'preceeds' is
>> 'directly preceeds' (otherwise, you should *not* conclude that A is
>> ConcurrentWith C.
>>
>>
>> Yes, "preceeds" is not transitive property
>>
>> - you can introduce a transitive superproperty 'preceeds-trans' of
>> preceeds and find all instances of the class (e.g., via OWL API and reasoner
>> or via the DL query tab in Protege 4):
>>
>> (preceeds-trans value C) or (Inv(preceeds-trans) value C)
>>
>> if A is *not* in the answer to this query, then you can assume that it is
>> ConcurrentWith C.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the effort, but I would like to keep the ontology meaningfull,
>> that is to avoid using "supporting" concepts for inference.
>>
>
> I understand - but from  " A preceeds B and C preceeds B,", it does not
> follow that "A isConcurrentWith C" -- unless you mean indeed that 'preceeds'
> is 'directly-preceeds'....and then you do need some transitive superproperty
> to talk about precedence in general?!
>
>
>  Do you possibly know why "preceeds some (succeeds min 2 ProcessActivity)"
>> is not working ?
>>
>
> what do you mean by 'not working'? You need to give us more context and
> more detail on what it is that isn't working.
>
> Cheers, Uli
>
>
>  I am confused about this - existential restriction works ("preceeds some
>> (succeeds some ProcessActivity)") but cardinality - obviously not ?!
>>
>> Cheers, Uli
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11 Sep 2009, at 12:27, Milan Zdravkovic wrote:
>>
>> I am a beginner in OWL, working on specific process ontology. I have a
>> problem in inferring the concurrency of process activities, for example - on
>> basis of asserted A preeceds B and C preceeds B, I need to infer that: A
>> isConcurrentWith C.
>> I was trying with modeling domain of isConcurrentWith with (Manchester
>> syntax):
>> preceeds some (suceeds min 2 ProcessActivity)
>> , where preceeds properties are asserted and suceeds is inferred inverse
>> property, but without success.
>>
>> Could you please help me on this ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Milan Zdravkovic,
>> IT Business Development Consultant
>> Inovation Center for Information Technologies (ICIT), Faculty of
>> Mechanical Engineering, University of Nis
>>
>> Phone: +381 64 1144797
>> Email: milan.zdravkovic@gmail.com
>> WWW: http://icit.masfak.ni.ac.yu/milan.zdravkovic
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/milanzdravkovic
>> Address: ul. Kovanlucka 58, 18000 Nis, Serbia
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.euraxess.rs
>> National EURAXESS portal: Facilitating researchers mobility to and from
>> Republic of Serbia
>>
>
>