- From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:33:32 +0200
- To: <doug.foxvog@deri.org>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>, <semantic-web-request@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <200508191933.j7JJXaNk008122@vmx70.multikabel.net>
Hi Doug,
Thanks you for your response! I'll try to give the proper rebuttals below.
Kind regards,
Hans
-------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: doug foxvog [mailto:doug.foxvog@deri.org]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 6:11 PM
To: semantic-web@w3.org; semantic-web-request@w3.org;
hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
Subject: [Fwd: [deri-research] FW: OWL Full reasoning]
> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org
[mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Hans Teijgeler
> Sent: Donnerstag, 18. August 2005 14:50
> To: semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: OWL Full reasoning
> Hi,
[HT1] I have worked out an example of a reasoning problem that we have:
http://www.infowebml.ws/topics/RDF-OWL/85-reasoning/example.htm
[DF]There are some problems with the description in this example resulting
from inconsistency as to whether various classes are first-order
(classes of individuals) or second-order (classes of classes of
individual) or even third order (classes of classes of classes of
individual). Consistency here is necessary before any attempt is
made for reasoning to solve the problem.
[HT2] I guess that if you study the entire hierarchy of the ISO 15926-2 data
model you would get the answers to that.
* [DP]The description of ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5 indicate that it is
a second-order class, i.e. its instances are first-order classes, yet
the question is posed whether an instance of DirectConnection, i.e.
an individual, is an instance of a subClassOf of
ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5 both in the text and in the figure.
[HT2] Is that a real problem in OWL? Not so in ISO 15926-2.
+ [DP]As a second-order class, this should probably be renamed
ValidConnectionTypePerANSI-B16.5
[HT2] I wrote a note that all names are labels, and to paraphrase
Shakespeare:"What's in a label?".. In the meantime I extended the Topic on
our website with an RDF/XML listing (upon request of Danny). In that listing
I now defined all the entity data types that are in the applicable
subbranches of the hierarchy that starts with Thing (Note: the ISO 15926-2
Thing!).There you can see that the ID is ERDL__998342 (see
http://www.infowebml.ws/topics/RDF-OWL/85-reasoning/example.htm )
+ [DP] The class of all valid connections Per ANSI-B16.5 is useful,
having
2"-150/300#RFFlangedConnection as a subclass. This corresponds to
the existing name, ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5, but would not be an
instance (much less a subclass) of ClassOfClasses. It would be
typed as a ClassOfIndividual.
[HT] The link between them is shown as 'type', not subClassOf.
* [DP]The figure depicts ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5 as a third-order
class, i.e. its instances are second-order classes, because the
link between it and ClassOfClasses is subClassOf instead of type.
This should be a type link if the second-order class were meant.
[HT] Are we looking at the same problem? The link IS 'type'.
*[DP]The three classes, ClassOfDirectConnection, ClassOfIndividual, and
ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject are first-order collections according
to one set of depicted links, yet second-order collections according
to another set of links. Assuming these are intended to be second-
order collections:
+ The link from 2"-300#RFFlange to ClassOfIndividual should be
type, not subClassOf
[HT] Why? It is a subset of the set of all individuals in the world in the
past, present, and future (mind you: in ISO 15926-2 a possible_individual is
a 4D (space-time) object.)
+ The link from 2"-300#RFFlange to ClassOfIndividual should be
type, not subClassOf
[HT] See above
+ The link from 2"-150/300#RFFlangedConnection to
ClassOfDirectConnection should be type, not subClassOf
[HT] Not in our modelling paradigm: the ClassOfDirectConnection is the set
of all direct connection relationships between any two members of
ClassOfIndividual, and the set of all 2"-150/300#RF flanged direct
connections is a subset thereof (both in past, present, and future)
* The links from DirectConnection to PossibleIndividual should be
classOfSide1 and classOfSide2 instead of side1 and side2
[HT] Why? Any instance of DirectConnection is related to two instances of
PhysicalObject. No Class in sight.
* The classOfSide1 and classOfSide2 links from ClassOfDirectConnection
to ClassOfIndividual have different meaning than the classOfSide1 and
classOfSide2 depicted from 2"-150/300#RFFlangedConnection. Those from
2"... indicate that any side1 link from an instance of 2"150/300... is
an instance of 2"-300#RFFlange (and side2 links are instances of
2"-150#RFFlange).
The links from ClassOfDirectConnection should be classOfClassOfSide1/2
indicating that instances of ClassOfDirectConnection should have
classOfSide1/2 to instances of ClassOfIndividual.
[HT] Again: why? If translated in Swahili you wouldn't say that, but the
model is just the same. The names given to the Properties don't drive the
logic, not in our paradigm.
I guess that you say that because you see a type link, and we see a
subClassOf link (see two answers up)
* [DP]The first check in Reasoning for Phase 2 should check whether there is
a subClassOf DirectConnection, not of ClassOfDirectConnection, with
the described properties. This class should be *typed* with the
class, ClassOfDirectConnection.
[HT] No, see three answers up.
* [DP]The second check should be whether the found OWL class is typed with
the *instance*, not subClassOf, ClassOfClass labelled
ValidConnectionTYPEPerANSI-B16.5 . Alternatively, it could check
whether the found class was a subClassOf a re-defined
ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5, which would be a subClassOf
DirectConnection (and be typed with ClassOfIndividual).
[HT] You lost me. The nice thing about an ISO standard is that you cannot
change it. You either comply or you don't, and what you want me to do is not
to comply. I have the impression that you may have to make the inverse of
the paradigm shift that I had to make when confronted with OWL for the first
time.
For the figure, the following type relations should hold:
Individuals of type
DirectConnection-Yellow
DirectConnection
FlangeOnPipeA265h PhysicalObject,
2"-150#RFFlange
FlangeOnPumpP101 PhysicalObject,
2"-300#RFFlange
First-Order Classes
DirectConnection
ClassOfDirectConnection
PossibleIndividual
ClassOfIndividual
PhysicalObject
ClassOfIndividual
2"-150/300#RFFlangedConnection
*ValidConnectionTypePerANSI-B16.5
2"-300#RFFlange
ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
2"-150#RFFlange
ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5*
ClassOfDirectConnection
Second-Order Classes
ClassOfDirectConnection
ClassOfClasses
ClassOfIndividual ClassOfClasses
ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject ClassOfClasses
ValidConnectionTypePerANSI-B16.5 ClassOfClasses
subClassOf relations should obtain between:
PhysicalObject
PossibleIndividual
DirectConnection
PossibleIndividual (?)
2"-150#RFFlange
PhysicalObject
2"-300#RFFlange
PhysicalObject
2"-150/300#RFFlangedConnection
ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5
ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5 DirectConnection
ValidConnectionTypePerANSI-B16.5 ClassOfDirectConnection
ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject
ClassOfIndividual
ClassOfDirectConnection
ClassOfIndividual
* Note that the figure does not have both ValidConnectionPerANSI-B16.5
and ValidConnectionTypePerANSI-B16.5
> I have the following questions to the OWL community:
> 1. Given the fact that this is clearly an implementation of OWL
> Full, can any OWL reasoner handle this at present?
It has to be cleaned up if anything is to handle it.
I don't know of a OWL-Full reasoner.
OpenCyc can currently handle the cleaned-up version (if encoded in CycL
instead of in OWL).
> 2. If not yet, may we realistically expect such a capability to
> be available by the year 2010?
> 3. And if not, why is there OWL Full?
> Regards,
> Hans
> _______________________
> Hans Teijgeler
> ISO 15926 specialist
> <http://www.InfowebML.ws> www.InfowebML.ws
> <mailto:hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl
> phone +31-72-509 2005
==========================================================
douglas foxvog doug.foxvog@deri.org +353 (91) 495 150
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
National University of Ireland, Galway
Galway, Ireland
http://www.deri.ie
==========================================================
Received on Friday, 19 August 2005 19:34:14 UTC