power of owl constraints

[Bohms, H.M. (Michel)]

In an ISO group we model some relations as instances of classes (to be able to add meta-data).

 

So we have:

Class “Link”, having a To and From relation to a link element.

 

Since we cannot reuse symmetry/transitivity/inverse functionality from OWL we have to model ourselves.

So, think:

1. Symmetry: If Rxy -> Ryx

 

2. Transitivity: (Rxy AND Ryz ) -> Rxz

 

3. Inverse: Rxy -> InverseRyx

 

Would it be feasible to do this kind of constraint modelling in OWL. Or need to go for SHACL?

 

Thx Michel

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms Senior Data Scientist T +31888663107 M +31630381220 E michel...@tno.nl Location   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.

 

 

[dprice]

On 6 Nov 2019, at 13:28, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

In an ISO group we model some relations as instances of classes (to be able to add meta-data).

 

So we have:

Class “Link”, having a To and From relation to a link element.

 

Since we cannot reuse symmetry/transitivity/inverse functionality from OWL we have to model ourselves.

So, think:

1. Symmetry: If Rxy -> Ryx

 

2. Transitivity: (Rxy AND Ryz ) -> Rxz

 

3. Inverse: Rxy -> InverseRyx

 

Would it be feasible to do this kind of constraint modelling in OWL. Or need to go for SHACL?

What is it you are trying to accomplish? e.g. Do you need inferences based on these statements? Are you going to also write your own rules of some sort to produce those inferences? etc.

BTW IMO most people would not call these “constraints” in the sense of something being invalid wrt them.

Symmetric and Transitive can be just a boolean flag on a Link (or subclasses of Link similar to OWL). Inverse is just a relation to another Link. This seems simple to model which makes me ask whether there isn’t more to the question.

Cheers,

David

 

Thx Michel

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms Senior Data Scientist T +31888663107 M +31630381220 E michel...@tno.nl Location

<image001.gif>

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 Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/64e6320449544167867e9887ea6f46c6%40tno.nl.

UK +44 (0) 7788 561308

US +1 (336) 283-0808‬

[Steve Ray]

Isn't what Michel is asking for provided by including the OWL 2 RL profile for an ontology?

Steve

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/661F2697-55BF-496F-84FC-40CF10A2E38C%40topquadrant.com.

[Irene Polikoff]

I don’t think so. OWL-RL does not provide any new/different OWL semantics or language elements. It is simply a set of rules that enact the inferences (and identify violations) that are entailed by the OWL statements.

I believe Michel is referring to a scenario like this (example of inverse):

ex:Property a owl:Class

ex:Property1 a ex:Property

ex:Property2 a ex:Property

ex:Property1 ex:from ex:Class1

ex:Property1 ex:to ex:Class2

ex:Property2 ex:from ex:Class2

ex:Property2 ex:to ex:Class1

How does one says that property 1 and property 2 are inverse of each other.

owl:inverseOf can only be used with RDF properties. Here, the goal is to say that if there is a chain of links between X and Y  :Property1 :from :X; :to :Y, then there must be :Property2 :from :Y; :to :X. And vice versa.

In that sense, it could be seen as a constraint that can be implemented in SHACL.

If one wants to infer the connections, then SHACL rules can support this.

Of the top of my head I can’t suggest ways of implementing any of these requirements with OWL. It might be (at least partially) possible using some complex patterns that use property chain axioms in some ways. Not sure. “Clever” application of these patterns can also take you out of OWL-DL.

In general, any use of OWL property chain axioms is uncommon - due to complexity and poor support.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/CAGUep866da%3DrmnmyJn8GybcygZLU0WmkX8qZm4TvdRum2KyKTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Irene Polikoff]

And, yes, agree with David, you could simply say

ex:Property1 ex:inverse ex:Property2

This by itself, however, does not provide any executable semantics for inverses or transitivity, etc. In other words, what you mean by this statement would be captured only in a verbal description of ex:inverse.

[Bohms, H.M. (Michel)]

Hi Irene

Indeed we want the scenario you described below!

(annotation/declaration not enough for verification i.e. execut. semantics)

Will investigate SHACL approach for these 3 restrictions....(anyway better in a CWA environment).

 

Thx a lot! Michel

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms Senior Data Scientist T +31888663107 M +31630381220 E michel...@tno.nl Location

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/3D0B8AFB-1570-4601-A67C-7BB9826984E0%40topquadrant.com.