Re: [OEP,ALL] Potential topics for OEP notes

thanks for your interest.

Max cardinality is the statement that must be made in order to be able 
to do some close world reasoning - i.e., in order to determine that no 
new values will fill a property on an individual.
min cardinality statements, while important in that they can be used for 
different kinds of reasoning and also result from putting values be 
asserted, do not impact closed world reasoning.


Yuzhong Qu wrote:

> Yes, It seems reasonable to do so.
> However, why the max cardinality is preferred to min cardinality?  I 
> think the min cardinality should not be overlooked.
> Yuzhong Qu
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Deborah L. McGuinness <>
>     To: Yuzhong Qu <>
>     Cc: WWW-SWBP <>
>     Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:31 PM
>     Subject: Re: [OEP,ALL] Potential topics for OEP notes
>     Yuzhong Qu wrote:
>>     Two notes:
>>     1. A question about "Count the number of values."
>>     When counting the number of values, SameIndividual and
>>     DifferentIndividuals axioms are definitely helpful. Besides these
>>     kinds of axioms, Should the Unique Name Assumption is applied?
>     using a unique names assumption is the most conservative thing to
>     do and would result in a max cardinality restriction that is not
>     incorrect (although possibly not as specific as it could be) thus
>     after taking same individual and different individual axioms,
>     apply the unique names assumption when counting.
>     hopefully an OEP note will come out in the not so distant future
>     that includes a more thorough description.
>>     2. A possible typo error: An inconsistent naming for property
>>     winthin the section "Abstracted solution: "
>>     a particular property, P, ...
>>     Retrieve the values for R on I
>>     Assert a max cardinality restriction on R for I ...
>     thx - updated.
>>     Yuzhong Qu
>>     Dept.Computer Science & Engineering
>>     Southeast University
>>     Nanjing, China, 210096
>>     Tel:+86-25-83794045
>>     Fax:+86-25-83794838
>>         ----- Original Message -----
>>         From: Deborah L. McGuinness <>
>>         To: Deborah L. McGuinness <>
>>         Cc: Christopher Welty <> ;
>> <>
>>         Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:15 AM
>>         Subject: Re: [OEP,ALL] Potential topics for OEP notes
>>         here is the link to the Closing
>>         Deborah L. McGuinness wrote:
>>>         I also agree that all of these would be useful and also that
>>>         we will want to prioritize.
>>>         I met in person or discussed the issue in email with a few
>>>         people in the last few weeks and also have input on the
>>>         following topics:
>>>         1.  part-of. 
>>>         a.  I met with evan about the simpler part-of note.  Evan is
>>>         interesting in contributing to that one and I also agreed to
>>>         help.  as background, i designed the part-of  solution for
>>>         ontolingua/jtp part-of reasoning in the high performance
>>>         knowledge base effort.  we essentially put in some structure
>>>         for some set of part-of relationships and identified
>>>         critical properties of those notions such as if they were
>>>         transitive.
>>>         i had spoken to evan about geographic containment in
>>>         particular since it is so useful and less controversial than
>>>         others.
>>>         i also contacted mike uschold by email about this simpler
>>>         note and asked if he would be interested in helping since i
>>>         believe he has done a more thorough look at gruber's units
>>>         and measures than anyone.  he agreed.
>>>         b.  I also spoke to chris about his broader notion of a
>>>         part-of note and agreed to help with that. arguably the
>>>         simpler note a might be a starting point for one portion of
>>>         the broader note b.   for example, note a could be very
>>>         operational with an example solution and note b could
>>>         include more discussion about the thornier part-of issues
>>>         and less agreed upon issues.
>>>         2. Time.  In May, I spoke with Jerry Hobbs about a note
>>>         based on his time ontology.  He was interested then.  The
>>>         idea might be to take his work as a starting point.  I
>>>         offered to help with this since we also have a special
>>>         temporal reasoner in jtp that we are now integrating with
>>>         owl time.
>>>         The work is not quite done but when it is, that might be a
>>>         convenient starting point as an operational example of using
>>>         owl time.
>>>         3.  Role Closing.  It may make sense for alan and me to talk
>>>         about this one and do it together.  In the classic stereo
>>>         configurator for example, we had a special "close all roles"
>>>         function implemented to that a user could call from the
>>>         interface by the click of a button.  it had a general
>>>         solution embedded in it but also leveraged information about
>>>         the domain.   With colleagues, I started to write up the
>>>         general solution for publication and we identified that
>>>         there were thornier problems lurking and unfortunately we
>>>         never finished the academic quality publication.
>>>         In some of the CLASSIC literature, i mentioned a little
>>>         about simple operational solutions.  I am thinking that an
>>>         operationally oriented note combining alan's and my
>>>         perspectives might go a long way.
>>>         a while ago i started the "how to do it" collection for
>>>         webont.  i can go back and find the one on closing roles and
>>>         send that in another email.
>>>         more generally, one thing i saw oep doing was moving forward
>>>         with the how to do it notion  where the emphasis was on
>>>         helping normal people use owl.     that was somewhat
>>>         motivated by the usefulness of the "tricks of the trade"
>>>         portion of the "living with classic" paper.   that attemped
>>>         to mention some of the typical questions we were asked and
>>>         the "typical" modeling solutions.
>>>         selfishly, i would like to find a way to contribute to notes
>>>         that are both useful and fun.  One aspect of fun to write
>>>         might be that some portion of them may be useful for a
>>>         publication.  It is conceivable that we might have the
>>>         operational/useful starting point that is the simpler note
>>>         to get out
>>>         and then have a second phase of the note that is something
>>>         that has more scholarly contribution.
>>>         d
>>>         Christopher Welty wrote:
>>>>         Here are some suggestions for the topics of future OEP
>>>>         notes for "ontology patterns".  I want to get some feedback
>>>>         both from the task force and the WG in general regarding
>>>>         other topics.  This is something of a synthesis of stuff
>>>>         that is needed, and stuff that we think people can do.
>>>>          Please make this an agenda item for next week's telecon.
>>>>          We hope to have something more concrete by the f2f, this
>>>>         is just intended to get people thinking:
>>>>         The partOf relation.  There really isn't that much that can
>>>>         be "said" in OWL (and therefore less in RDF) regarding the
>>>>         typical axiomatizations of partOf, but knowing the
>>>>         different kinds of partOf relations and what they are
>>>>         supposed to mean would be useful.  I'm hoping that some
>>>>         subset of Nicola, Alan, and I can take the lead on this
>>>>         one, but I also see the need for a couple of notes here, so
>>>>         I think this needs further discussion.  For example Deborah
>>>>         expressed interest in a simpler note (less ambitious but
>>>>         quicker turnaround) on geographical containment.
>>>>         Units and measures.  There has been some work on this,
>>>>         including in Cyc, Tom Gruber's ontology in Ontolingua, and
>>>>         Helena Sofia-Pinto did a nice one for the old SUO effort.
>>>>          Evan was interested in this and it certainly makes sense
>>>>         to have someone at NIST do it.
>>>>         Subjects.  The notion of what a subject "is" and what the
>>>>         "subjectOf" relation means can be quite confusing.  I have
>>>>         done a lot of work on this and am willing to take this one
>>>>         on, however I will want to do one at a time.
>>>>         Time.  Jerry Hobbs has done a very thorough job putting
>>>>         together a consensus ontology of time based on a lot of
>>>>         existing time ontologies, most of which draw from the Allen
>>>>         calculus.  The ontology is expressed in FOL (KIF), but
>>>>         there are (necessarily simplified) DAML+OIL and OWL
>>>>         ("OWL-Time") versions  available.  Jerry has expressed
>>>>         interest in seeing this as a W3C note.
>>>>         Fluents.  Closely tied to the notion of time is being able
>>>>         to say that a binary property "holds" for a time. e.g. one
>>>>         may want to say that "Chris is a member of the W3C from
>>>>         Sept, 2004 - Sept 2005".  A property like memberOf is a
>>>>         fluent because it can be said to hold at a time (this is
>>>>         not strictly a correct definition, but it will suffice).
>>>>          While OWL-Time let's you represent a time interval like
>>>>         "Sept, 2004-Sept, 2005", it remains neutral wrt what
>>>>         happens at or during such a time interval.  The typical
>>>>         move in FOL is to use a function or add an argument to the
>>>>         predicate, e.g. memberOf(Chris, W3C, time-interval-1),
>>>>         however clearly we can't do that in OWL or RDF, since we
>>>>         are limited to binary predicates.  One solution is to go
>>>>         for full reification of fluents, as in the exsiting not on
>>>>         n-ary relations, however there are some other choices.  I'm
>>>>         hoping I can get Pat Hayes and Richard Fikes to work with
>>>>         me on this one.
>>>>         On the side of "ontology engineering":
>>>>         Ontology 101 tutorial specifically for OWL/RDF.
>>>>         I think a note to help orient people on the role OWL and
>>>>         RDF in semantic integration is critical, I get pinged on
>>>>         that regularly.  I lot of people think OWL is the silver
>>>>         bullet for semantic integration (I suggested at ISWC last
>>>>         year that semantic integration is a mountain, not a
>>>>         werewolf, and OWL is, at best, a small silver chisel).
>>>>         There was just a Dagstuhl symposium on this subject in
>>>>         general (i.e. not specific to OWL), and special issues of
>>>>         AI Magazine and Sigmod record coming out as well.  I hope
>>>>         Natasha and/or MikeU will take the lead on such a note.
>>>>         People who know what "ontology" and "semantics" actually
>>>>         mean (in the much larger world outside of computer
>>>>         science), often ask why the two have become nearly
>>>>         synonymous on the semantic web.  Personally, I think its a
>>>>         fair question and a short note on why we're so confused
>>>>         would be worthwhile.  Maybe this goes in another task force
>>>>         (wasn't there a clean up the mess we've made task force?)
>>>>         We're open to other suggestions.
>>>>         -Chris (OEP co-co)
>>>>         Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
>>>>         IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY
>>>>          10532     USA              
>>>>         Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1
>>>>         914.784.7455
>>>>         Email:, Web:
>>> Deborah L. McGuinness 
>>> Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
>>> 353 Serra Mall
>>> Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
>>> Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
>>> email:
>>> URL: 
>>> (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
>> Deborah L. McGuinness 
>> Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
>> 353 Serra Mall
>> Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
>> Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
>> email:
>> URL: 
>> (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
> Deborah L. McGuinness 
> Co-Director Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
> Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
> Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
> email:
> URL:
> (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   

 Deborah L. McGuinness 
 Co-Director Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 16:12:02 UTC