| To: | "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| From: | "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 2013年6月10日 22:11:32 +0000 |
| Message-id: | <FDFBC56B2482EE48850DB651ADF7FEB01F1D8E22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Przemyslaw,
I think you will find useful suggestions here, but you should probably try the Semantic Web semantic-web@xxxxxx list for specific OWL solutions.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of William Frank
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:44 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Strange problem with cardinality restrictions
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Przemyslaw Jaskierski <przemjaskier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello, thank you for your replies.
It appears to me, from the Wine tutorial, that it does encourage this. I just don't understand what you can do by having positive votes and negative votes be different types of things, rather than the same type of thing with a different attribute value.
I can see from the below that it surely adds complexity, this plethora of 'types'.
My example just shows model logically equivalent to much more complex one that I'm working on as a POC for logic programming with OWL.
I need to simply make a GOOD/BAD classification of an individual - based on the class types of 1..n of individuals connected to him by a hasX property. Making subclasses for this classification makes sense for me
Even when the two subclasses 'Yes', 'No', are constants, and so naturally VAULES?? (I.e, are themselves individuals?)
After looking at some good models of similar things in OWL, I am now quite sure that this is not a good practice, just a bad practice that is becoming increasingly common. Your answer below shows you want to create even more bogus classes. I recommend you
instead have a type 'Vote Response', and **associate*** vote response with 'vote", instead of subtyping 'vote'. In other words, define a predicate (i.e., and function) on the vote class whose domain is vote and whose range is vote response. The values of
the the function when applied to vote individual s will the the individuals 'yes' and 'no'. You will especially find this less disruptive to your model when you want to add other individuals to the vote response type, such as 'abstain'. This way also, other
predicates on vote, such as who is the voter, etc. etc.,
here is a query that lists all the vote responses
SELECT * WHERE { ?vote a vote:Vote ; vote:hasResponse ?response }
[vote] response
vote:MyVote vote:Yes
vote:YourVote vote:No
- I'm searching a solution for what looks like a trivial problem - making PositiveVoteResult and NegativeVoteResult separate classes changes nothing - NegativeVoteResult is set properly and PositiveVoteResult is never set for an individual that supposed to match the condition.
> OWL is a restricted subset of logic, and Protege is a tool.
> Neither one is useful for this problem.Ok, but I have to use Protege/OWL here. I have an impression that it can be done, but I'm missing something trivial here. If one trivial cardinality restriction works good and another trivial (complementary/opposite???) restriction does not, maybe the solution is really simple? I mean, if such trivial thing can't be expressed there is something really bad with this technology...
Best regards,
Przemek
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
--
William Frank
413/376-8167
This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.
It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
without the permission of the sender.
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Laws: physical and social , doug foxvog |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [ontolog-forum] ONTOLOG Community Event Planning Session - Thu 2013年06月13日 , Peter Yim |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Strange problem with cardinality restrictions , William Frank |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Strange problem with cardinality restrictions , Przemyslaw Jaskierski |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |