Hello Kinoshita. I have tried to download the Protege plugn, copy the FuzzyOWL2PlugIn.jar into Protege plugin folder, and copy the dlib folder into the Protege folder
When I tried to run the protege (Windows Batch File), protege does not launches and flushes an error of Unknown source. If you can provide me your email, I will write you in private because this mailing list belongs to jena On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruno P. Kinoshita <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tina > > > Someone posted similar question some time ago. > > I started my involvement with Apache Commons, because I needed some > functional programming > features for a fuzzy logic Java API (that was before Java 8). > > One pointer from the thread of the other question, was that Protege has a > plug-in for > using not just crisp predicates, but also fuzzy predicates, with your > ontology. > > Here's the link > > http://www.umbertostraccia.it/cs/software/FuzzyOWL/ > > The way it works, basically, is by having an ontology, with a reasoner > that is able > to convert certain fuzzy values and query the ontology. > > In you example, you would have to build fuzzy membership functions for > useful, very useful, and > useless. Then the reasoner would do the rest for you. > > You can have a look at existing reasoners that support fuzziness, and then > either > use Java to query your ontology with the reasoner, or try to integrate > with the web > interface - if necessary. > > Hope that helps > Bruno > >________________________________ > > From: tina sani <[email protected]> > >To: [email protected] > >Sent: Friday, 29 July 2016 10:23 PM > >Subject: Vague knowledge in Ontologies > > > > > >How can we use the vague information, fuzzy based, in our ontologies. > >Is it possible that we embed it into the already existed domain > ontologies? > >I will appreciate if some one share a working examples. > >I have an ontology in which two of the classes needs fuzzy values like > >useful, very useful and useless. How I will be able to do it without much > >changes to my original ontology. > > > >with regards > > > > > > >
