Thanks Scott, I have been making the same mistake myself from time to time. LFJ
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Scott Henninger <[email protected] > wrote: > You may want to ask Dean. I think it's just a typo - it should have > read "OWL-DL allows something called Data Range Expressions". It's > also an understandable misconception because the OWL 2 spec is written > in the context of OWL-DL, and there are few references to OWL Full. > > -- Scott > > On Jul 5, 9:05 am, Leonard Jacuzzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Scott, > > > > I had gotten those points and I was working to write the CONSTRUCT query/ > > rule that I want. > > > > But my question is different and probably should be on a different > thread. > > The question was not whether OWL RL has axioms for such reasoning. > > The question is: > > > > Is it true, as Dean writes at that link, that only OWL2 Full (as opposed > to > > OWL2 DL) allows for data range expressions? > > > > Thanks for your help, > > Best wishes, > > Leonard > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Scott Henninger > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Leonard; OWL 2 RL omits axioms for datatype inferencing. It's not > > > clear why, IMHO, other than the committee may have been concerned > > > about computational performance and specifically wanted to limit the > > > RL profile to performant inferences. Dean, and the examples we give > > > here, show how to extend the OWL 2 RL profile to include datatype > > > inferencing. > > > > > The examples are showing that one can easily use SPIN to create SPARQL > > > CONSTRUCT queries that creates a "OWL 2 RL+" that includes datatype > > > inferences and some others that the W3C committee omitted. > > > > > -- Scott > > > > > On Jul 4, 8:55 pm, Leonard Jacuzzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Irene, > > > > > > I was just looking over those helpful links. > > > > > > In the second, I noticed that Dean seemed to be asserting that using > data > > > > range expressions is not possible in Owl 2. > > > > > > This is one passage I had in mind: > > > > > > *OWL-Full allows something called **Data Range > > > > Expressions*< > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-quick-reference-20091027/#Data_Ranges> > > > > *, in which you can define a range to be a set of values* > > > > > > Is it true that OWL2 DL does not provide for these constructs? From > what > > > I > > > > was reading it seemed that it did. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Leonard > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Irene Polikoff < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Leonard,**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > A reasoner that supports all of OWL 2 will be able to make this > > > inference. > > > > > However, there are serious performance issues with supporting the > > > entire > > > > > spec. Because of these issues, OWL 2 profiles we created.**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > Here is a link to a presentation from Ian Horrocks that goes into a > lot > > > of > > > > > details about OWL 2 > > > > > > http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/ian.horrocks/Seminars/download/OWL2-overvi.. > > > .. > > > > > **** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > I will point out a couple of slides that are most important to this > > > > > discussion:**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > On slide 28, you will see the following as a motivation for > defining > > > > > profiles:**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > **• **OWL only *useful in practice* if we can deal with > large > > > > > ontologies and/or large data sets**** > > > > > > > **• **Unfortunately, OWL is worst case highly > intractable**** > > > > > > > **– **OWL 2 ontology satisfiability is *2NEXPTIME-complete* > **** > > > > > > > **• **Possible solution is *profiles*: language subsets > with > > > > > useful computational properties**** > > > > > > > **• **OWL defined one such profile: *OWL Lite* **** > > > > > > > **– **Unfortunately, it isn’t tractable either! > > > (EXPTIME-complete)* > > > > > *** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > Slide 29 lists the profiles defined for OWL 2:**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > **• **OWL 2 defines three different tractable > profiles:**** > > > > > > > **– ***EL*: polynomial time reasoning for schema and > data**** > > > > > > > **• **Useful for ontologies with large conceptual part**** > > > > > > > **– ***QL*: fast (logspace) query answering using RDBMs via > > > SQL**** > > > > > > > **• **Useful for large datasets already stored in RDBs**** > > > > > > > **– ***RL*: fast (polynomial) query answering using > > > rule-extended > > > > > DBs**** > > > > > > > **• **Useful for large datasets stored as RDF triples**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > OWL RL and OWL QL are recommended profiles for use when you need to > > > work > > > > > with realistic datasets.**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > We have implemented OWL RL profile in SPIN. Other people, such as > > > Ontotext > > > > > with OWLIM, implemented OWL RL profile as well. **** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > But, reasoning over mininclusive and maxinclusive is not officially > a > > > part > > > > > of OWL RL (or OWL QL). I don’t believe this has to do with the > > > computational > > > > > properties. Rather it has to do with the type and extent of > reasoning > > > that > > > > > could be done once you include mininclusive and maxinclusive into a > > > profile. > > > > > **** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > In any case, since OWL RL is rules, you can extend the standard OWL > RL > > > rule > > > > > set to add a rule to address the type of inference you need.**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > Scott’s suggestion is very specific to what you are wanting to do > with > > > age. > > > > > In addition to it, here is a pretty detailed example with > screenshots > > > > > showing how you can add a more generic rule: > > > > >http://dallemang.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/08/extending-owl-rl-.html. > .. > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > Regards,**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > Irene Polikoff **** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > > > > > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Leonard Jacuzzo > > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:45 PM > > > > > *To:* [email protected] > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [topbraid-users] Re: Classifying Instances.**** > > > > > > > ** ** > > > > > > > Thanks Scott. **** > > > > > > > I will give that a try.**** > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > > However I wonder, when you wrote that OWL reasoners will not make > > > this > > > > > inference, were you intending "No OWL reasoner will make this > > > inference" or > > > > > "No OWL reasoner bundled with TBC will make this inference"? **** > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > > I ask because if no OWL reasoners will make this inference, then I > am > > > left > > > > > wondering why everyone is so geeked on OWL.**** > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > > Best,**** > > > > > > > Leonard**** > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Scott Henninger < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote:**** > > > > > > > Hello Leonard; I'm not sure what was going on with your model that > had > > > > > it running for days at a time. I expect you have something like > the > > > > > following in the equivalentClass of :child: > > > > > :hasAge some xsd:integer[>= 1 , <= 18] > > > > > > > ...and want something like the following to be classified as a > member > > > > > of :child: > > > > > :Mikey :hasAge "18"^^xsd:integer > > > > > > > I researched this a bit and have concluded that OWL reasoners will > not > > > > > make that kind of inference. The Pellet reasoner we have is old > > > > > (their license does not allow us to include it in our distribution) > > > > > and OWLIM needs updating as well. Bother are OWL 1.x reasoners. > You > > > > > can get OWL 2 RL profile reasoning by choosing the Profile tab in > the > > > > > ontology home. Then configure inference for TopSPIN. Again, the > > > > > above inference is not made with this profile. > > > > > > > My suggestion is to use SPIN. This is a SPARQL-based reasoner that > > > > > applies rules to all members of a class and its subClassOf > > > > > entailments. The OWL 2 RL profile is in fact specified by a set of > > > > > W3C rules implemented in SPARQL. > > > > > > > Then your problem becomes a simple one. Create a model that > imports > > > > > the spin.rdf ontology (New... RDF/OWL/SPIN file) and define the > > > > > following rule for the Patients class: > > > > > CONSTRUCT {?this a :child } > > > > > WHERE > > > > > { ?this :hasAge ?age . > > > > > FILTER (?age >= 1 && ?age <= 18) > > > > > } > > > > > > > This will infer members of :child per your criteria. It really is > a > > > > > higher-level than RDF and you can guold other abstractions through > > > > > SPIN functions and templates, etc. > > > > > > > -- Scott**** > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 3:50 pm, Leonard Jacuzzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello list, > > > > > > > > Thanks for all of your help in the past. > > > > > > > > I have a question that is a follow up to my question regarding > > > defining a > > > > > > class in terms of restrictions using mininclusive, max inclusive > etc. > > > > > > > > I have created an ontology that is meant to be useful for > determining > > > > > > whether or not a set of individuals is a member of a given class > as > > > well > > > > > as > > > > > > which individuals are members of which class. > > > > > > > > For example, Imagine that I have a set of instance data about a > group > > > of > > > > > > patients and I want to determine which of those patients are > adults, > > > > > which > > > > > > are children, which are elderly etc. In this case I have > information > > > > > about > > > > > > the ages of these patients and I have an Ontology that defines > > > "adult", > > > > > > "child, "elder" etc. in terms of restrictions on the datatype > > > property > > > > > for > > > > > > "hasAge" in terms of maxinclusive, mininclusive etc. Basically, a > > > child > > > > > > would be defined as a person that hasAge some minInclusive 1 and > > > > > > maxExclusive 18. > > > > > > > > So my question is, how can I use the capability of TBC M.E. to > > > determine > > > > > of > > > > > > a such a group of patients which patients are instances of which > > > classes. > > > > > > > > I tried "inferencing" with SWIFT OWLIM and it did not make the > > > inference. > > > > > (I > > > > > > am certain that my OWL expression is correct, but I can send an > > > example > > > > > if > > > > > > necessary) > > > > > > > > I tried Pellet and after about 2days (using only 1 instance) I > gave > > > up. > > > > > It > > > > > > got as far a "realizing" after about a day and got 3/4s of the > way > > > > > through > > > > > > realizing. > > > > > > I tried the built in Jena reasoner and it hung up for an hour > while > > > > > > "querying triple 1240900" So I shut it down. > > > > > > > > So I am wondering how does one use native OWL logic to perform > such a > > > > > feat? > > > > > > > > I am sure I can use a SPARQL query, but I would like to move > beyond > > > > > simple > > > > > > RDF and take advantage of the capabilities of OWL. > > > > > > > > Maybe it is pointless? > > > > > > > > Any help will be greatly appreciated. > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid > Composer, > TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
