- From: Thomas Schneider <schneidt@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:00:50 +0000
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Cc: Alessandro Maccagnan <maccagnan@math.unipd.it>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, Erika Feltrin <erika.feltrin@cribi.unipd.it>
- Message-Id: <0BE46765-73A0-4C96-AFC0-7DBB1E615A13@cs.man.ac.uk>
On 14 Jan 2010, at 08:50, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:
> Hi Thomas, Alessandro,
>
> Doesn't your (2) violate the global constraints on complex
> properties? You cannot have cardinality constraints on complex
> properties (such as chains and transitive properties).
Oops ... *blush*
Sorry
Thomas
> I myself have struggled with these kinds of modelling problems while
> working on my PhD. Chapter 7 of my dissertation describes ways of
> 'coping' with the limitations of OWL 2. See [1,2] if you're
> interested.
>
> Best,
>
> Rinke
>
> [1] http://www.leibnizcenter.org/~hoekstra/wordpress/
> [2] http://dare.uva.nl/document/144868
>
> On 13 jan 2010, at 20:04, Thomas Schneider wrote:
>
>> Oh, just now I've read Uli's email properly ... and her suggestion
>> shows that this three-variable statement might be possible. Would
>> it be enough for your purposes if you say the following?
>>
>> (1) The composition of has_action_goal and inverse(has_object_goal)
>> implies has_object
>> (2) Every action can have at most one object (Action subClassOf
>> has_object max 1 Thing)
>> (3) All individuals of type object are distinct
>>
>> If (2) clashes with your scenario, it seems to me that you will
>> need closed world reasoning.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2010, at 17:52, Thomas Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alessandro,
>>>
>>> On 13 Jan 2010, at 11:09, Alessandro Maccagnan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Uli,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your reply.
>>>> We are trying to define a propertyChain but we realize that what
>>>> we need to say is as follows.
>>>>
>>>> defining these properties:
>>>> Action has_object Some Object
>>>> Action has_action_goal Some Goal
>>>> Object has_object_goal Some Goal
>>>>
>>>> at the individuals level we would like to say:
>>>>
>>>> a1 has_action_goal g1
>>>> o1 has_object_goal g1
>>>> o2 has_object_goal g2
>>>> =>
>>>> a1 CAN HAVE has_object o1
>>>>
>>>> BUT
>>>> a1 CANNOT HAVE has_object o2
>>>>
>>>> So this means that only the objects (o) that have the same goal
>>>> (g) of the
>>>> action (a) can be used in that action.
>>>
>>> I don't think that this can be said in OWL because you will have
>>> to say that every individual x that is related to an individual y
>>> via has_object must also have another link to y via the chain
>>> has_action_goal o inverse(has_object_goal). This statement
>>> requires three variables in first-order logic, hence it's unlikely
>>> that it can be expressed in OWL. (Or does anyone here see a clever
>>> trick?) You might be more lucky with a rule language, but that is
>>> not my domain.
>>>
>>> Second, together with the rule you stated in your last sentence,
>>> the ontology you gave is not sufficient to conclude that a1 cannot
>>> have o2 as an object: the individuals g1 and g2 can be the same,
>>> and actions and objects are not prevented from having other goals
>>> than the ones stated. You will at least have to make all
>>> individuals different and close the "some" restrictions with
>>> corresponding "only" restrictions. Even then, the open world
>>> assumption might play a trick on you in the cases where you
>>> haven't said anything about certain individuals, so you might
>>> require closed world reasoning here.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Alessandro
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Uli Sattler
>>>> <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> Hi Alessandro,
>>>>
>>>> this is a tricky think to be done. What you can do is use a
>>>> propertychain to ensure that
>>>>
>>>> the composition of has_object with has_Goal implies has_Goal.
>>>>
>>>> This would require the usage of a dedicated 'has_Goal' (rather
>>>> than a less specific has_information) property, but this
>>>> shouldn't be a problem (make has_information a superproperty of
>>>> has_Goal if you like).
>>>>
>>>> Does this suffice? Cheers, Uli
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Jan 2010, at 14:54, Alessandro Maccagnan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> we are developing an ontology for the description of a general
>>>> Action structure. The Action Structure is composed of:
>>>>
>>>> Subject (that performs the action)
>>>> Object_complement (that undergoes the action)
>>>> Complement (that helps in the execution of the action)
>>>> Goal of Action (the effect of the action)
>>>>
>>>> We have already defined that:
>>>>
>>>> Action has_information one Goal_of_action
>>>> Action has_object some Object
>>>> Object is_object_in some Action
>>>> Object has_information some Goal_of_action (because an object can
>>>> be used in several distinct actions)
>>>>
>>>> Now we would like to say that an Action can have as its objects
>>>> only those that have the same goal of the related action.
>>>>
>>>> Action has_object some Object where Object.Goal=Action.Goal
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately we are stuck because we do not know how to
>>>> formalize it in OWL. Does anybody have any suggestions to help us?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Alessandro Maccagnan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alessandro
>>>> Maccagnan
>>>
>>> +
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at)
>>> cs.man.ac.uk |
>>> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt
>>> |
>>> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161
>>> 2756136 |
>>> | University of
>>> Manchester |
>>> | Oxford Road _///
>>> _ |
>>> | Manchester M13 9PL
>>> (o~o) |
>>> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--
>>> OOOo--+
>>>
>>> Jubones (pl.n.)
>>> Awful things bought in Nairobi which never look good at home.
>>>
>>> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> +
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at)
>> cs.man.ac.uk |
>> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/
>> ~schneidt |
>> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161
>> 2756136 |
>> | University of
>> Manchester |
>> | Oxford Road _///
>> _ |
>> | Manchester M13 9PL
>> (o~o) |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--
>> OOOo--+
>>
>> Jubones (pl.n.)
>> Awful things bought in Nairobi which never look good at home.
>>
>> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt |
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester |
| Oxford Road _///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
Jubones (pl.n.)
Awful things bought in Nairobi which never look good at home.
Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 12:01:44 UTC