OWL uses Open World Assumptions. Thus if I have class Animal and property eats (domain Animal, range Animal) Mouse, Cat (eats Mouse), Dog and if I state the DL Query for instances (Protege 5.2) Animal and not (eats some) the result is empty.
Is there any way to make this query return Mouse and Dog with Owl e.g. make it somehow behave closed world?
thanks,
The main point is as you implied: you have close the world in some way. I.e. currently there is nothing in your ontology from which the reasoner can infer that Dog and Mouse don't eat mice. This can be achieved by:
Class: Animal
DisjointUnionOf:
Cat, Dog, Mouse
Class: Cat
EquivalentTo:
eats some Mouse
SubClassOf:
Animal
Class: Dog
SubClassOf:
Animal,
eats only (not (Mouse))
Class: Mouse
SubClassOf:
Animal,
eats only (not (Mouse))
I have written about some of the ways in which open world assumption issues can be avoided when using existential (some) and universal (only) property restrictions here and here.
As an aside: You may want to rethink your domain and range restrictions on eats. What domain and range restrictions do is whenever, in this case, one individual eats another individual, it will infer that both individuals are of type Animal. This would mean if an individual of type Mouse eats say cheese, it will infer that the cheese is an Animal.
Related
I tried to use the same object property between multiple classes, but I got a warning that the same object property has been set multiple times as follows, can you please let me know what is wrong with that and how to solve it? Does this restrict reasoning later on (i.e. confuse the reasoner since the same object property is set multiple times)?
Thanks
Contrary to the comments it actually is very problematic to use the same object property between multiple classes.
What you don't see in your visualization is that in RDF/OWL, the starting point of your relation arrows is modelled as rdfs:domain and the target point of the arrows is modelled as rdfs:range.
The semantic of an OWL class is that it is a set of individuals and rdfs:domain and rdfs:range specify the domain, respectively range of a relation. That is, they specify the sets of allowed values in subject, respectively object position of a triple with that relation in the predicate position.
If you express your example in RDF Turtle it would look like this:
:hasPart rdfs:domain :ClassA, :ClassB;
rdfs:range :ClassB, :ClassC, :ClassD.
This causes multiple problems:
Intersection
The semantic of multiple domains, respectively ranges, is the intersection of those classes, not the union!
Even if we disregard the relation between :ClassB and :ClassD, this means :hasPart is only allowed by individuals that are instances of class C and class D at the same time!
For example, lets say class A is "car", class B is "tire" and class C is "motor". Now you want to say that a car can have tires and motors but what you actually specify is that a car can only have things that are a motor and a tire at the same time!
Unwanted but allowed usage
If you fix the first problem but specifying the union instead of the intersection, it will be very messy in serialized RDF because you need a large amount of triples to represent OWL restrictions such as unions. But even if you do that, you could now connect an instance of class A with an instance of class D, which is not allowed in the image.
Solution
The solution is simple, just separate those relations, for example into :hasB, :hasC and :hasD, although in a real scenario you can probably find a more suitable naming scheme, where the "has" prefix is often not used. For example, in DBpedia, the property for the country of a city is expressed using dbo:country, not dbo:hasCountry.
I am working on an object diagram and would like to use this kind of notation:
To convey a disjoint. Is there a way to do this?
In your picture you have Entity-Relationship diagram, which has nothing to do with UML. Likewise UML Object diagram is concerned with visualizing actual instances, so my guess is that you were looking for Class Diagram.
In UML, you could model this as a generalization set
hide circle
class Patient
Patient <|-- Outpatient
Patient <|-- Resident
GeneralizationSet ..(Patient, Outpatient)
(Patient, Resident) .. GeneralizationSet
class GeneralizationSet {
isDisjoint = true
}
the isDisjoint = true tells us that it can be either one or the other, but not both.
This question is about Ontologies , I am implementing an ontology about potential physical attacks on wireless sensors as devices.
I created class Modification_Attack meaning attacks which modify in the sensor itself. I created Programming_Modification as an instance of this class, is this logical, is it better a sub-class or neither an instance nor a sub-class?
What is the main difference between instances and sub-classes?
This question isn't really unique to OWL ontologies; it comes up in object-oriented programming, and in set theory in mathematics. A class is a collection of its members. E.g.,
Person ≡ { person1, person2, … }
Suppose you have another class:
TallPerson ≡ { person63, person102, … }
A class A is a subclass of the class B if every element of A is also an element of B:
(A ⊆ B) ≡ (x ∈ A → x ∈ B)
So, for instance, if every member of TallPerson is also a member of Person, then TallPerson is a subclass of Person.
I created class Modification_Attack meaning attacks which modify in
the sensor itself.I created Programming_Modification as an instance of
this class , is this logical , is it better a sub-class or neither an
instance nor a sub-class?
This is a choice that you need to make. It really depends on the context and how you intend to use the ontology. If you're observing attacks in the wild and trying to categorize them, you probably want a subclass, but you'll want to have instances of Programming_Modification. That is, you'll want something like:
Programming_Modification ≡ { attack24, attack89, … }
But if you've got some other kind of use case, where you you want to talk about Programming_Modification as a single entity, then it might make more sense for it to be an individual.
I have been thinking through the same issue. And I think the same thing can be both an instance and a subclass depending on whether you plan to use it conceptually or not, which can be simplified to whether you would describe it using the or a.
For example, I am working on a materials ontology, where the main class is Material. A particular type of material is Steel. If I say the steel then steel an instance of Material. If I say a steel then Steel is a subclass of Material. Further, steel is an instance of Steel. And it would be more appropriate to also give it some kind of meaningful identifier like steel-1.
It all seems to come down whether you are using a term as a conceptual class or as a name for some instance of that class. In your case, I think it would probably be more appropriate to say Programming_Modification is a subclass as you could probably have many of such modifications which you would refer to as the first Programming_Modification or the second Programming_Modification . Would love to see what you came up with though if you have a solution.
I have modelled the following in my Ontology:
Club employs some Player, Player hasNationality some Nationality, Player hasNationalStatus value National_Player, Country is equivalent to Nationality.
I want the Ontology to infer that:
If a Player hasNationality some Nationality and, Player hasNationalStatus value National_Player then, Country(Same as the nationality the player has) employs Player.
As an example:
{Steven_Gerrard} hasNationality value England and, {Steven_Gerrard} hasNationalStatus value National_Player therefore, {England} employs [Steven_Gerrard}.
Is there a possible way to add this knowledge to Protege?
Thanks.
Edit:
Error Messages:
Error 42 Logged at Tue Apr 01 20:49:24 BST 2014
OWLReasonerRuntimeException: Non-simple object property 'http://www.semanticweb.org/u1cjd/ontologies/2014/1/untitled-ontology-2#employs' is used as a simple one
and
Error 43 Logged at Tue Apr 01 20:49:24 BST 2014
ReasonerInternalException: tRole.cpp:243: assertion 'Ancestor.empty() && Descendant.empty()' fails
This is possible, and it's actually very similar to the technique I mentioned in an answer to your previous question, Adding statements of knowledge to an OWL Ontology in Protege), and the structure of this answer is almost identical to my answer to a recent answers.semanticweb.com question, OWL property inference from blank node - modelling.
You just need to use some rolification and a property chain axiom. The point to note is that the existing data has the form of the upper arrows, and the desired information is in the lower arrows.
It's not enough to give employs the subproperty hasNationality-1, because you want to ensure that the player has a particular national status. This is where you need rolification. You want employs to have a subproperty chain of hasNationality-1 • p, where p is a special property that only relates players with national status to themselves. You can do that with rolification. Just declare a new object property RNationalPlayers and assert the axioms
hasNationalStatus value National_Player EquivalentTo R_NationalPlayer some Self
inverse(hasNationality) o R_NationalPlayer subPropertyOf employs
In the description logic syntax, these would be something like:
=hasNationalStatus.National_Player ≡ ∃RNationalPlayer.Self
hasNationality-1 • RNationalPlayer ⊑ employs
This will work in some reasoners, but unfortunately, this does bring us out of OWL 2 DL and into OWL full. This was discussed in some detail in the comments on this answer. As the error message in the updated question indicates, employs is now a non-simple property, and used in a place where only simple properties should be used. See 11.1 Property Hierarchy and Simple Object Property Expressions for more about what makes a property simple or not, and 11.2 The Restrictions on the Axiom Closure for more about properties can appear where.
However, it sounds like you're using a reasoner that supports SWRL rules, in which case you could simply add the rule:
hasNationality(?player,?country) ∧ hasNationalStatus(?player,National_Player) → employs(?country,?player)
My question is related to SWRL rules and actually was already asked by another user (see Ontology property definition in Protégé-OWL / SWRL). Still, after following the instructions on how to get it to work, I was not successful.
In my ontology I have to work with some complex temporal facts (related to time intervals etc.), therefore I import the Time Ontology. Before tackling the real problem, I'm consider a simple example, testing how to assign a value to a data property based on a SWRL rule. The simple example deals with a class Person. There also is a class BirthYear (subclass of the Instant class from the Time Ontology). The object property bornInYear, with domain Person and range BirthYear relates a Person with the year of his/her birth. I would like to calculate the age of the person in the current year, therefore I formulate this SWRL rule:
Person(?p) ∧ bornInYear(?p, ?birthYear) ∧ subtract(?age, 2014, ?birthYear)
→ age(?p, ?age)
After creating an individual of class Person and asserting that his/her BirthYear has the value "1977", I would expect Pellet to calculate that this person's age is 37. This does not happen. Any idea why? Is the SWRL rule correct? (In order to know if the value 37 is asserted to the data property age, I look at the "Property assertions" view of the individual p. I also make sure, that in the reasoner preferences the check box 'Object Property Assertions" is checked.) My example ontology reads as follows:
Prefix(SWRLexample:=<http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2014/1/SWRLexample#>)
Prefix(xsd:=<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>)
Prefix(swrlb:=<http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrlb#>)
Prefix(owl:=<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>)
Prefix(:=<http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2014/1/untitled-ontology-101#>)
Prefix(time:=<http://www.w3.org/2006/time#>)
Prefix(xml:=<http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace>)
Prefix(rdf:=<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>)
Prefix(swrl:=<http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#>)
Prefix(rdfs:=<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>)
Ontology(<http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2014/1/SWRLexample>
Import(<http://www.w3.org/2006/time>)
Declaration(Class(SWRLexample:BirthYear))
SubClassOf(SWRLexample:BirthYear time:Instant)
Declaration(Class(SWRLexample:Person))
Declaration(ObjectProperty(SWRLexample:bornInYear))
ObjectPropertyDomain(SWRLexample:bornInYear SWRLexample:Person)
ObjectPropertyRange(SWRLexample:bornInYear SWRLexample:BirthYear)
Declaration(DataProperty(SWRLexample:age))
AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment SWRLexample:age "Age of a person in years")
DataPropertyDomain(SWRLexample:age SWRLexample:Person)
DataPropertyRange(SWRLexample:age xsd:int)
Declaration(NamedIndividual(SWRLexample:birthYear1))
ClassAssertion(SWRLexample:BirthYear SWRLexample:birthYear1)
DataPropertyAssertion(time:year SWRLexample:birthYear1 "1977"^^xsd:gYear)
Declaration(NamedIndividual(SWRLexample:p1))
ClassAssertion(SWRLexample:Person SWRLexample:p1)
ObjectPropertyAssertion(SWRLexample:bornInYear SWRLexample:p1 SWRLexample:birthYear1)
DLSafeRule(Body(ClassAtom(SWRLexample:Person Variable(<urn:swrl#p>)) ObjectPropertyAtom(SWRLexample:bornInYear Variable(<urn:swrl#p>) Variable(<urn:swrl#birthYear>)) BuiltInAtom(swrlb:subtract Variable(<urn:swrl#age>) "2014"^^xsd:integer Variable(<urn:swrl#birthYear>)))Head(DataPropertyAtom(SWRLexample:age Variable(<urn:swrl#p>) Variable(<urn:swrl#age>))))
)
There are a few problems (but I'm glad that that other answer was a useful starting point):
age is a data property, so you not only need to make sure that "the check box 'Object Property Assertions' is checked," but also 'Data Property Assertions', since it's a datatype assertion that you're looking for.
BornInYear is an object property, so ?birthYear in bornInYear(?p, ?birthYear) must be an individual. However, swrlb:subtract's arguments must be numeric literals. To use swrlb:subtract, you'll need to get the integer value of the year in the rule and perform the arithmetic on that. You should be able to do that without too much trouble, although I'm not sure if you'll still be able to use the value "1977"^^xsd:gYear. SWRL does define some functions working with dates and times, though (see 8.5. Built-Ins for Date, Time and Duration). Not all the reasoners support that, though (e.g., I don't think Pellet does). However, the value of the year property does need to be an xsd:gYear.
Here are the successive steps :
Go to metadata tab
Import temporal ontology, prefix it as temporal.
Go to SWRL tab
Write rule as follows :
Person(?x) ^ hasDOB(?x, ?dob) ^ temporal:duration(?age, "now", ?dob, temporal:Years) -> hasAge(?x, ?age)
where Person is a class
hasDOB,hasAge are object properties