Re: Using cardinality restrictions

Check out

Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist
http://www.amazon.com/Semantic-Web-Working-Ontologist-Effective/dp/0123735564

Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Hector G. Ceballos <ceballos@itesm.mx>wrote:

> Thank you Uli,****
>
> It would be great having a textbook for introducing non-logicians to
> ontology engineering. Members of this mailing list constantly (and
> repeatedly) answers this kind of doubts, which I deeply appreciate, but the
> interest of other area  experts would decrease if they don’t get what they
> expect when they are trying to codify their common-sense in an ontology. *
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks again for the references.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Hector G. Ceballos****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Uli Sattler [mailto:sattler@cs.man.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:00 AM
> *To:* ceballos@itesm.mx
> *Cc:* public-owl-dev-request@w3.org; Soeren.Kemmann@iese.fraunhofer.de;
> public-owl-dev@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Using cardinality restrictions****
>
> ** **
>
> Pascal Hitzler and friends have written one that might help ****
>
> ** **
>
> Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies
> Pascal Hitzler, *Kno.e.sis Center at Wright State University, Dayton,
> Ohio, USA*; Markus Krotzsch, *University of Oxford, Oxford, UK*
> ; Sebastian Rudolph, *University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany*****
>
> ** **
>
> - but I am afraid that you won't really get around the logic bit...other
> than that, I don't know of any other textbook style book. Then there is the
> DL Handbook (logic, I know), the OWL 2 primer, and general overview papers
> of OWL (e.g.,
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.2.7039&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers, Uli****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 13 Jul 2011, at 15:47, ceballos@itesm.mx wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Is there any didactic book with kind of recipies for questions like this?
> And I don't mean a logic one but an OWL one.
> Cheers
> Hector g Ceballos ****
>
> Enviado desde mi oficina móvil BlackBerry® de Telcel****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk> ****
>
> *Sender: *public-owl-dev-request@w3.org ****
>
> *Date: *Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:46:13 +0100****
>
> *To: *<Soeren.Kemmann@iese.fraunhofer.de>****
>
> *Cc: *<public-owl-dev@w3.org>****
>
> *Subject: *Re: Using cardinality restrictions****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 13 Jul 2011, at 14:28, <Soeren.Kemmann@iese.fraunhofer.de> wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Hi Uli, hi @all,****
>
>  ****
>
> Yes, that makes sense!****
>
> I was trying to build a small example analog to the famous pizza example.*
> ***
>
> The difference is that I do not want to assign instances to the partitions
> and use them, but I want to just define instances and have the reasoner
> interfere to which class they belong to.****
>
> I’m sorry … but I couldn’t achieve this yet. This is what I did:****
>
> My Class Hierarchy:****
>
> Thing****
>
> - RefClass****
>
> - TestValuePartition == (Part1 union Part2)****
>
>                 - Part1****
>
>                 - Part2****
>
> Part1 and Part 2 are marked as disjoint.****
>
> Furthermore, I defined that Part 1 has some references to RefClass (hasRef
> some Class).****
>
> Now, if I create two instances with asserted type TestValuePartition, one
> that has a reference to an instance of RefClass and the other having no
> instance.****
>
> ** **
>
> again, be careful, 'the other having no *known* [reference to an] instance
> of RefClass.****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Due to the value partition I would have expected that instance 1 is
> interfered to be of Part1 ****
>
> ** **
>
> ...and this works (as you say below)****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> and instance 2 to be of Part2, but again only Part1 works!****
>
> ** **
>
> same as before: instance 2 may or may not have a hasRef-successor, so we
> have not enough information to say whether instance 2 is an instance of
> Part1 or of Part2... ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Instance 2 stays as being a TestValuePartition instance (only). For me the
> Value Partition is in this case not a value partition!?****
>
> What am I missing?****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I am afraid you are missing the open world assumption (and thus of
> possible, but neither necessarily true, nor necessarily false facts - e.g.,
> instance 2 is possibly an instance of Part1, possibly an instance of Part2,
> thus not necessarily an instance of either)...check for 'closure axioms'!
> Cheers, Uli****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Thanks a lot!****
>
>  ****
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Sören****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Uli Sattler [mailto:sattler@cs.man.ac.uk <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 12. Juli 2011 17:35
> *To:* Kemmann, Soeren
> *Cc:* public-owl-dev@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Using cardinality restrictions****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 10:27, <Soeren.Kemmann@iese.fraunhofer.de> wrote:****
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Hi there,****
>
>  ****
>
> I’m trying to model (with Protégé 3.4.6 with Pellet Reasoner … just in case
> it matters) that a class A has two subclasses B and C, where B and C are
> disjoint.****
>
> The distinction I want to make is that every instance of A is either of
> subclass B or of C dependent on the cardinality of a property p.****
>
> The “test” is whether the instance has values assigned to property p ( p
> min 1). This kind of works … the instances are interfered to be of that
> type.****
>
> But the other class does not work. If tried (p max 0), (p exactly 0), (p
> exactly 0 RangeClass), but nothing works.****
>
>  ****
>
> I’m using OWL-DL and as far as I understood 0/1 cardinalities are ok for
> OWL-DL, right?****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Soeren, ****
>
>  ****
>
> yes, they do - I guess you have, in your ontology, something like ****
>
>  ****
>
> B SubClassOf C   ****
>
> A SubClassOf C  %% these two axioms aren't really necessary if you have the
> 2 below...****
>
>  ****
>
> A EquivalentClass C and (p min 1) ****
>
> B EquivalentClass C and (p max 0) ****
>
>  ****
>
> ...and then when you have an instance of C with ****
>
>  ****
>
> - 1 known p-successor, they are classified as being an instance of A****
>
> - no known p-successor, they are ... only classified as being an instance
> of C - and you wonder why...****
>
>  ****
>
> The reason is found in the word 'known' used above: your instance of C has
> no *known* p-successor, but could have some, due to the open world
> assumption!****
>
>  ****
>
> So, how to rescue this? For example, you could say explicitly how many
> p-successors an individual has...in general, you need a 'closure' statement
> that says that the *known* p-successors are all p-successors. ****
>
>  ****
>
> If I remember correctly, the famous Pizza tutorial explains this in detail
> (see http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/tutorials/protegeowltutorial/ )****
>
>  ****
>
> Cheers, Uli****
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Thanks a lot!****
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Sören****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Dipl. Inf. Soeren Kemmann
> Fraunhofer IESE
> Fraunhofer-Platz 1, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
> Tel.: +49 (0) 631 / 6800 - 2218
> Fax.: +49 (0) 631 / 6800 - 9 2218
> mailto:soeren.kemmann@iese.fraunhofer.de<soeren.kemmann@iese.fraunhofer.de>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>