Re: Jim Likes Dogs

Hi Martin

I am not sure I understand what your notation is saying.
I understand Jim is an individual.  But what does "Types:" mean and what is
"likes min 2 Dog"  I have a general parsing problem.
In Jim Likes Dogs I parse Subject Property Object.
In OWL2 what are you saying here - is this a ClassAssertion a Property or...


Individual: Jim
     Types:
         likes min 2 Dog

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:protege-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Kuba
> Sent: June-25-12 12:35 AM
> To: User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor
> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Jim Likes Dogs
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I think that "Jim likes dogs" means
> 
> Individual: Jim
>      Types:
>          likes min 2 Dog
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Martin
> 
> Dne 25.6.2012 09:13, Thomas Schneider napsal(a):
> > On 25.06.2012, at 07:17, Jim Tivy wrote:
> >
> >> Using classes to express what is essentially an object property
> >> assertion on Jim seems wrong to me.
> >>
> >> I counter by saying this is a shortcoming of OWL2.
> >
> > Why should it be? What are you missing? At least you can't blame OWL as
> long as you're not clear about what exact part of "Jim likes Dogs" you're
> desperate to express.
> >
> > If you want to make a statement about all members of the class Dog, then
> Timothy's two suggestions are perfectly OK and fully capture the fact that
Jim
> likes all (or some) dog.
> >
> > If you need to distinguish between liking a particular member of the
class
> Dog and liking dogs in general, you can use a different object property
and
> Timothy's first suggestion. This seems fine to me because then there
doesn't
> seem to be an obvious logical connection between this new OP and the old
> "likes": if I like some dog, it doesn't mean that I like all dogs and vice
versa. If
> you still see a logical connection, chances are that you can express it in
OWL
> too.
> >
> > If you insist on using object property assertions (are you sure you
meant
> "object property assertion"?), you could introduce a new individual "dog"
> and use an object property assertion between "jim" and "dog". If you need
> to relate "dog" back to the class "Dog", you can follow Timothy's first
> suggestion once again, using a different OP such as "represents".
> >
> > Perhaps there is a more standard way of modelling that last one, but
> definitely I cannot agree with your claimed "shortcoming" because I don't
> see what you're missing.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Thomas
> 
> 
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> CERIT-SC                               Martin Kuba
> Institute of Computer Science    email: [email protected]
> Masaryk University             http://www.ics.muni.cz/~makub/
> Botanicka 68a, 60200 Brno, CZ     mobil: +420-603-533775
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
> 
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

_______________________________________________
protege-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03