Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and Prot - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and Prot

Description:

ROVE. OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED-2005) Galway, Ireland, November 11-12, 2005 ... ROVE web site. http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/dvr/rove ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:46
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 10
Provided by: moc4
Learn more at: http://km.aifb.kit.edu
Category:
Tags: owl | limits | prot | pushing | rove | rules

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and Prot


1
Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and ProtégéA
simple example
  • Anne Cregan
  • Malgorzata Mochol
  • Denny Vrandecic
  • Sean Bechhofer

2
Summer School
3
Modeling task
  • Model Summer School and its project groups
  • Classify Good Groups wrt to 5 requirements
  • 4 or 5 members
  • Easy in OWL
  • Mixed gender group
  • Possible, but tricky for a novice
  • No two members with same nationality
  • No two members from same institution
  • Impossible in OWL, hard in SWRL
  • Having fun

4
Different nationalities
  • hasMember(?g, ?s) ? hasNationality(?s, ?n) ?
    hasMember(?g, ?x) ? hasNationality(?x, ?n) ?
    differentFrom(?s, ?x) ? BadGroup(?g)
  • But how to define a Good Group??

5
Different nationalities
  • GroupWithFourMembers(?g) ?
  • hasMember(?g, ?a) ? hasNationality(?a, ?n) ?
  • hasMember(?g, ?b) ? hasNationality(?b, ?o) ?
  • hasMember(?g, ?c) ? hasNationality(?c, ?p) ?
  • hasMember(?g, ?d) ? hasNationality(?a, ?q) ?
  • differentFrom(?a, ?b) ? differentFrom(?a, ?c) ?
  • differentFrom(?a, ?d) ? differentFrom(?b, ?c) ?
  • differentFrom(?b, ?d) ? differentFrom(?c, ?d) ?
  • differentFrom(?n, ?o) ? differentFrom(?n, ?p) ?
  • differentFrom(?n, ?q) ? differentFrom(?o, ?p) ?
  • differentFrom(?o, ?q) ? differentFrom(?p, ?q)
  • ? GoodGroupWrtNationality(?g)

6
OWL / Open World Assumption
  • rich set of class constructors
  • weaker expressivity for properties
  • challenging to fully understand
  • the implications of the Open World Assumption
  • the lack of Negation as Failure.

7
Rules
  • asymmetric usage of positive and negative forms
  • need declaration of closures
  • rules become large and difficult to edit or
    maintain
  • lack of an appropriate reasoner

8
Read the paper
  • highlight the problems with OWL and rules
  • Give feedback for the tools available
  • supply tutorial material
  • be used as an early test case for reasoners
  • initiate discussion of possible solutions
  • we formalized fun

9
Thank you!
  • ROVE web site
  • http//www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/dvr/rove/
  • Authors
  • Anne Cregan
  • annec_at_cse.unsw.edu.au
  • Malgorzata Mochol
  • mochol_at_inf.fu-berlin.de
  • Denny Vrandecic
  • denny_at_aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
  • Sean Bechhofer
  • sean.bechhofer_at_manchester.ac.uk
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com