1 / 9

Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and Prot é g é A simple example

Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and Prot é g é A simple example. Anne Cregan Malgorzata Mochol Denny Vrande čić Sean Bechhofer. Summer School. Modeling task. Model Summer School and its project groups Classify Good Groups wrt to 5 requirements 4 or 5 members Easy in OWL

ivie
Download Presentation

Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and Prot é g é A simple example

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and ProtégéA simple example Anne Cregan Malgorzata Mochol Denny Vrandečić 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@cse.unsw.edu.au • Malgorzata Mochol mochol@inf.fu-berlin.de • Denny Vrandečić denny@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de • Sean Bechhofer sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk

More Related