Hi Irene,

Thx for your information/explanation. Since you say " If, for some unusual 
reason, you wanted to create restrictions independently from the named classes 
they are used to define, y"
I try to reformulate a bit better, just to better understand (in my reasoning 
it's not an unuasual reason so I probably don't understand it right....).

Suppose I have A(x) and R(x), A being a named class and R being an anonymous 
restriction class. I then see three options that could be relevant:
1) A(x) -> R(x)
You define the class A and define the restriction R for it and make A a 
subclass of R. R is a necc. condition for A.
2) A(x) <-> R(x)
You define a class A and define again restriction R but now say equivalent 
class iso subclass.
R is a necc. and also sufficient condition for A (in case you know something 
satisfies R(x) you know it is a member of A(x) so you could automatically 
classify.

So these two ways are the typical constructs I up to now encountered and used. 
But now the unusual one, in second sight doesnt seem so unusual at all (well to 
me):
3) R(x) -> A(x)
Now we cannot start with a defined class but have to first instantite R(x) 
after making it visible in the class tree.
So we define a restriction class and then say its a subclass of A(x).
Now we can only partially/incomplete classify because R(x) is optional for A.

(so in my view 2) is just 1) AND 3)....)

Is this storysofar still ok?
and can indeed reasoners do 3) because they can already do 2, which is in fact 
1and3)?

Thx again! Michel



2015-04-14 17:41 GMT+02:00 Bohms, H.M. (Michel) 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:




Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms
Sr. Research Scientist
Structural Reliability

T +31 (0)88 866 31 07
M +31 (0)63 038 12 20
E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Location<http://www.tno.nl/locaties/DTM>



[cid:[email protected]]<http://www.tno.nl/>

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.



From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
 On Behalf Of Irene Polikoff
Sent: dinsdag 14 april 2015 16:16
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] sufficient modelling

Michel,

If I understood you correctly, the answer is “it doesn’t matter, the end result 
is always the same”.

Create a restriction your usual way, then expand it in the class form and ctrl 
click on the owl:Restriction in the expanded display to navigate to it. You 
will see that it has an instance (or several instances depending on how many 
restrictions you have created). These instances are anonymous resources of type 
owl:Restriction. You can explore them.

If, for some unusual reason, you wanted to create restrictions independently 
from the named classes they are used to define, you could go to Preferences in 
TBC and adjust them for the Classes tree so that owl:Restriction appears there. 
Then create instances. Put the appropriate properties in the owl:onProperty 
widget and appropriate classes or values into owl:hasValue, owl:someValuesFrom 
or whatever you want to use. Then, go to a named class and drag and drop the 
appropriate instance into the rdfs:subClassOf or owl:equivalentClass widgets.

If you look at the resulting RDF, it will be identical irrespective of how you 
got there (provided that it is the same type of restriction).

<Hwat does it mean to be sufficient but NOT necessary? (potential incomplete 
classification?)>

"Sufficient and necessary" terminology is not part of OWL. It is Protégé 
specific terminology. In OWL, there are rdfs:subClassOf and owl:equivalentClass 
connections to some other classes. The meaning ((what could be inferred) based 
on such relationships to restrictions is defined in the OWL spec. It depends on 
the type of restriction. For example:

If :Class1 is a subclass of a restriction [onproperty hasID, 
owl:hasValue=14220), then for each :A rdf:type :Class1, you can infer that :A 
:hasId ‘14220’.
But if you have a resource :B of some other or unknown type and :B :hasId 
‘14220’, you can’t infer that :B rdf:type :Class1.

If :Class1 is an equivalent class of this restriction, then you can make both 
inferences - :A :hasId ‘14220’ and B rdf:type :Class1.

Regards,

Irene Polikoff


From: "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 5:53 AM
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [topbraid-users] sufficient modelling

I have a question about modelling “subclassses the other way round”.

Typically I model, classes with restrictions being described as subclasses of 
anonom. classes.
Sometimes I do the same with equivelnt classes in case of necc. & sufficient 
conditions.

But, til now, I never modelled only the way back….saying a an. Restriction 
class as subclass of a named class.
(so my LHS of x-> y is now something like [onproperty hasID, owl:hasValue=14220)

With that info I could check an instance for this code and derive it is an 
instance of my named class.

Another example: everything having a xHeight is actially an X. (same but now 
using someValuesFrom iso hasValue)

So now my questions:

-        How do I do this in topbraid (till now it was the other way round, 
defining a class and then a restriction)

-        Since equivalence is both ways I guess the way back only also makes 
sense right?

-        Hwat does it mean to be sufficient but NOT necessary? (potential 
incomplete classification?)

-        How do reasoners deal with this backward Subclassing (do they do it? 
Is it much harder for them for such complex LHS…?)

-
Thanks a lot! Michel





Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms
Sr. Research Scientist
Structural Reliability

T +31 (0)88 866 31 07
M +31 (0)63 038 12 20
E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Location<http://www.tno.nl/locaties/DTM>



[cid:[email protected]]<http://www.tno.nl/>

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group 
"TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary 
Network (EVN), Reference Data Manager (RDM), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, 
TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN.
To post to this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group 
"TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary 
Network (EVN), Reference Data Manager (RDM), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, 
TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN.
To post to this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group 
"TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary 
Network (EVN), Reference Data Manager (RDM), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, 
TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to