RE: Playing with sets in OWL...

> Another problem is that the set could have properties on its own, for
> instance:
> 
> Set1 hasAuthor Jhon

[VK] One way of doing this could be to use "has Author" as an annotation of the
class Set1. I believe, some DL reasoners do not reason on Annotations, but at
the same time you can query for classes based on annotations e.g., get me all
classes authored by John...

Or may be, for simple things like this, you could use a separate data dictionary
or something (of course, there are downsides to this architectura)

Instead of using has Author one could call it "defined-by" or something.

> meaning that John is defining it. But hasAuthor is typically used for
> individuals, and I wouldn't like to fall in OWL-Full, by making an OWL
> reasoner to interpret Set1 both as an individual and a class.
> 
> Aren't there more informal (although less precise) methods to model
> sets, or list of individuals?
> 
> An approach could be modeling some sort of set-theory over individuals:
> 
> set1 isA GeneSet
> set1 hasMember g1, g2, g3
> ...
> 
> set1 derivesFromUnionOf set2, set3
> 
> ...
> 
> But I am not sure it would be a good approach, or if someone else
> already tried that.

[VK] You seem to be redefining the OWL machinery in some sense here.
    - Classes are treated as sets 
    - membership function is implemented by the ABox
    - Union, intersection etc. are implemented by the TBox...
May be I am missing something here?

Would you need a set iteration function for your application? Wondering if there
is some sort of set iteration in OWL or it is probably better to implement a
wrapper for this.

Cheers,

---Vipul

Received on Friday, 8 September 2006 16:40:30 UTC