- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:52:42 +0000
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Cc: Thomas Schneider <schneidt@cs.man.ac.uk>, Alessandro Maccagnan <maccagnan@math.unipd.it>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, Erika Feltrin <erika.feltrin@cribi.unipd.it>
On 14 Jan 2010, at 13:14, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > On 14 jan 2010, at 13:30, Uli Sattler wrote: >> ...but do you really need (2)? I think having all the rest should >> do the trick? Cheers, Uli > > For inferring the has_object relation, (1) alone is enough. But you > need some form of cardinality constraint (or functional property) if > you want to be able to raise a red flag whenever anyone asserts for > some action that it has two has_object relations to two distinct > objects. > do you really need to raise this flag? What if an action has 2 goals, say, to 'heat water' and 'to boil water'...then this shouldn't matter? I guess what you need to check is that an action of a certain kind has a certain goal (and that might be implied by virtue of the goals of its sub-actions) and that it has no subactions with some other kind of goal (like 'throwing the water out')? Cheers, Uli > Bottom line: it can't really be done in OWL 2. > > -Rinke > >> >> On 14 Jan 2010, at 12:00, Thomas Schneider wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 13:53:05 UTC