http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=CatherineRoussey 2026-04-04T02:34:04Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Community:CatherineRoussey_about_LinnaeanTaxonomy&diff=11436 2013-05-22T10:32:22Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2013-05-22 |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey |ContentOPUnderReview=LinnaeanTaxonomy |RevisionID=9097 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |Review...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2013-05-22<br /> |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=LinnaeanTaxonomy<br /> |RevisionID=9097<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=in taxonomy domain, the number of rank is not fixed.<br /> A taxonomy should contain at least the rank : species, genus, family, order, class, gender, phylum, kingdom. These rank are called major rank. But more rank can be specified like subspecies, super family, variety etc...<br /> see the wikipedia page for more information<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank<br /> <br /> Thus the universal restriction constraints should be removed to be used by any kind of taxonomy. The constraint that fix the direct parent rank in the taxonomy can not be specified in this pattern.<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:CatherineRoussey_about_SimpleOrAggregated&diff=10111 2010-09-16T13:44:03Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: Article updated via HTTP request</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=SimpleOrAggregated<br /> |RevisionID=10064<br /> |CreationDate=2010/9/10<br /> |Score=0 - needs major revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=I do not understand exactly what will be the purpose of this pattern and Which behavior the author expect from the reasoner. So I need more information to give a review. <br /> <br /> The main problem is the semantic of the aggregation property. There exist different partOf relationship and I need to know the relationship between the aggregation property and the partOf one...<br /> |ReviewConfidence=I know the design pattern composite in software engineering...and the DUL ontology. The hasPart and isPartOf property has to be associated to this pattern.<br /> |ReviewProblems=No information is given on the meaning of the aggregation property: <br /> is it a hasMember, hasPart, hasComponent property?<br /> maybe the aggregation can be replace by any of them...<br /> and does this property transitive or not?<br /> <br /> Why do you thing that all the objects can be classified as a simple one or an aggregated one?<br /> First I would rather fixe a subClassOf relationship between ObjectByCardinality and Object... Depend of the point of view (the scale) an object can be classified as simple or not...<br /> An organ is a simple object or not? Organ is composed of cells and cell is composed of...<br /> <br /> if an individual O has two aggregated Members O1 and O2 asserted in the ontology... Moreover if O1 is fixed as same as O2... what do you expect from the reasoner? What's happen if instead 02 is also an aggregatedMember of O1?<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=This pattern is only applicable in certains conditions which are not well described ...<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=The consequence on individual are not well described.<br /> If a whole is composed of two aggregatedMembers which are fixed as equivalent, the whole is still classified as a aggregatedObject.<br /> Is it what do you expect from the reasoner?<br /> <br /> Moreover if the whole is classified as a simple Object and is composed of two objects that are equivalent to each other there are an unconsistency...<br /> So I do no think that the reasoning about number of parts is possible with this pattern...<br /> |ReviewMissing=the semantic of the aggregation property: hasAggregatedMember...<br /> }}<br /> &lt;noinclude&gt;=====16-09-2010 [[User:CatherineRoussey]] says:=====<br /> I have seen that the definition of a simple Object is an object with no aggregated Objects (no parts) so what is an object with only one aggregated Object? no an aggregated Object but not a simple Object... the ObjectBy Cardinality partition should be modified...&lt;/noinclude&gt;</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Community:CatherineRoussey_about_Inverse_n-ary_relationship&diff=10108 2010-09-16T13:31:40Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: Article updated via HTTP request</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010-09-10<br /> |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship<br /> |RevisionID=10060<br /> |Score=2 - accept for certification<br /> |ReviewSummary=This pattern express that an n-ary relationship (OffersServiceAtPlaceTimeWithPrice) can be summarize in a simple relationship (provideService property) between the two main participants (ServiceProvider and Service). <br /> The relationship between the two main participants can be modelized with different details (rought modelization and detailed one).<br /> <br /> The purpose of this pattern is to make the querying of the knowledge based more easy. But you will have to manage the updating of the knowledge base. The simple relation may exist even if the n-ary relationship do not...and vice versa...So if there is no problem with that point I am OK... Maybe you could explain that the creation of the simple relationship can be derived from the existence of the n-ary relationship. <br /> }}<br /> &lt;noinclude&gt;=====16-09-2010 [[User:CatherineRoussey]] says:=====<br /> I agree that the name of the pattern do not hep to understand the purpose of the pattern. Maybe a name like simplification Of Nary Relation is more understandable...<br /> the Nary relationship pattern should be add before on the portal.&lt;/noinclude&gt;</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Community:CatherineRoussey_about_Inverse_n-ary_relationship&diff=10099 2010-09-10T16:01:24Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010-09-10 |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship |RevisionID=10060 |Score=2 - accept for certif...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010-09-10<br /> |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship<br /> |RevisionID=10060<br /> |Score=2 - accept for certification<br /> |ReviewSummary=This pattern express that an n-ary relationship (OffersServiceAtPlaceTimeWithPrice) can be summarize in a simple relationship (provideService property) between the two main participants (ServiceProvider and Service). <br /> The relationship between the two main participants can be modelized with different details (rought modelization and detailed one).<br /> <br /> The purpose of this pattern is to make the querying of the knowledge based more easy. But you will have to manage the updating of the knowledge base. The simple relation may exist even if the n-ary relationship do not...and vice versa...So if there is no problem with that point I am OK... Maybe you could explain that the creation of the simple relationship can be derived from the existence of the n-ary relationship. <br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:CatherineRoussey_about_SimpleOrAggregated&diff=10098 2010-09-10T15:38:40Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=SimpleOrAggregated<br /> |RevisionID=10064<br /> |CreationDate=2010/9/10<br /> |Score=0 - needs major revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=I do not understand exactly what will be the purpose of this pattern and Which behavior the author expect from the reasoner. So I need more information to give a review. <br /> <br /> The main problem is the semantic of the aggregation property. There exist different partOf relationship and I need to know the relationship between the aggregation property and the partOf one...<br /> |ReviewConfidence=I know the design pattern composite in software engineering...and the DUL ontology. The hasPart and isPartOf property has to be associated to this pattern.<br /> |ReviewProblems=No information is given on the meaning of the aggregation property: <br /> is it a hasMember, hasPart, hasComponent property?<br /> maybe the aggregation can be replace by any of them...<br /> and does this property transitive or not?<br /> <br /> Why do you thing that all the objects can be classified as a simple one or an aggregated one?<br /> First I would rather fixe a subClassOf relationship between ObjectByCardinality and Object... Depend of the point of view (the scale) an object can be classified as simple or not...<br /> An organ is a simple object or not? Organ is composed of cells and cell is composed of...<br /> <br /> if an individual O has two aggregated Members O1 and O2 asserted in the ontology... Moreover if O1 is fixed as same as O2... what do you expect from the reasoner? What's happen if instead 02 is also an aggregatedMember of O1?<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=This pattern is only applicable in certains conditions which are not well described ...<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=The consequence on individual are not well described.<br /> If a whole is composed of two aggregatedMembers which are fixed as equivalent, the whole is still classified as a aggregatedObject.<br /> Is it what do you expect from the reasoner?<br /> <br /> Moreover if the whole is classified as a simple Object and is composed of two objects that are equivalent to each other there are an unconsistency...<br /> So I do no think that the reasoning about number of parts is possible with this pattern...<br /> |ReviewMissing=the semantic of the aggregation property: hasAggregatedMember...<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:CatherineRoussey_about_SimpleOrAggregated&diff=10096 2010-09-10T15:29:03Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/10 |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey |ContentOPUnderReview=SimpleOrAggregated |RevisionID=10064 |Score=0 - needs major revision |Revi...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010/9/10<br /> |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=SimpleOrAggregated<br /> |RevisionID=10064<br /> |Score=0 - needs major revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=I do not understand exactly what will be the purpose of this pattern and Which behavior the author expect from the reasoner. So I need more information to give a review. <br /> <br /> The main problem is the semantic of the aggregation property. There exist different partOf relationship and I need to know the relationship between the aggregation property and the partOf one...<br /> |ReviewConfidence=I know the design pattern composite in software engineering...and the DUL ontology. The hasPart and isPartOf property has to be associated to this pattern.<br /> |ReviewProblems= No information is given on the meaning of the aggregation property: <br /> is it a hasMember, hasPart, hasComponent property?<br /> maybe the aggregation can be replace by any of them...<br /> and does this property transitive or not?<br /> <br /> Why do you thing that all the objects can be classified as a simple one or an aggregated one?<br /> First I would rather fixe a subClassOf relationship between ObjectByCardinality and Object... Depend of the point of view (the scale) an object can be classified as simple or not...<br /> An organ is a simple object or not? Organ is composed of cells and cell is composed of...<br /> <br /> if an individual O has two aggregated Members O1 and O2 asserted in the ontology... Moreover if O1 is fixed as same as O2... what do you expect from the reasoner? What's happen if instead 02 is also an aggregatedMember of O1?<br /> <br /> |ReviewClearProblem=This pattern is only applicable in certains conditions which are not well described ...<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=The consequence on individual are not well described.<br /> If a whole is composed of two aggregatedMembers which are fixed as equivalent, the whole is still classified as a aggregatedObject.<br /> Is it what do you expect from the reasoner?<br /> <br /> Moreover if the whole is classify as a simple Object and is composed of two objects that are equivalent to each other there are an unconsistency...<br /> So I do no think that the reasoning about number of parts is possible with this pattern...<br /> |ReviewMissing=the semantic of the aggregation property: hasAggregatedMember...<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Community:CatherineRoussey_about_Normalization&diff=10095 2010-09-10T12:24:42Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010-09-10 |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey |ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization |RevisionID=10071 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |ReviewSu...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010-09-10<br /> |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization<br /> |RevisionID=10071<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=This pattern is very usefull when you want to validate a classification and make some modifications.<br /> <br /> In the cell ontology, I have downloaded from the ODP portal, there is no disjointness relationships. But in the description on the modularization process, the author mentions &quot;making primitive siblings disjoint&quot;. Thus, it is not easy to understand which the disjoint siblings are ... Could you modify the example and add disjointness relationships.<br /> <br /> Moreover what happens when the ontology is too big to allow a reasoner to infere the new classification ... Maybe a scenario may be proposed in order to explain how to validate part of a huge classification... To my point of view the infered subClassOf relationship may be saved for manual research... You can image to save two versions of the same classification, the one to validate the classification (this one can be used for modification) and another one that save a version of the classification in a validate state. This version will be usefull for manual research without reasoner.<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=6021 2009-11-12T16:47:58Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:AntipatternOIL.JPG]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> |AlsoKnownAs=OIL<br /> |Author=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=Our work is based on the debugging process of real ontologies that have been developed by domain experts, who are not necessarily too familiar with DL, and hence can misuse DL constructors and misunderstand the semantics of some OWL expressions, leading to unwanted unsatisfiable classes. Our patterns were first found during the debugging process of a medium-sized OWL ontology (165 classes) developed by a domain expert in the area of hydrology called HydrOntology. The first version of this ontology had a total of 114 unsatisfiable classes. The information provided by the debugging systems used on (root) unsatisfiable classes was not easily understandable by domain experts to find the reasons for their unsatisfiability. And in several occasions during the debugging process the generation of justifications for unsatisfiability took several hours, what made these tools hard to use. Using this debugging process and several other real ontologies debugging one, we found out that in several occasions domain experts were just changing axioms from the original ontology in a somehow random manner, even changing the intended meaning of the definitions instead of correcting errors in their formalisations. <br /> <br /> We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. Thus they are antipatterns. A Koenig define antipatterns as patterns that appear obvious but are ineffective or far from optimal in practice, representing worst practice about how to structure and build software. We also have made an effort to identify common alternatives for providing solutions to them, so that they can be used by domain experts to debug their ontologies. <br /> <br /> All these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation.<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> <br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> <br /> other alternative solutions could be:<br /> <br /> 1) suppress the disjointness axiom.<br /> <br /> 2) create two sublass of C1 such as: C1.1 subClassOf C1; C1.1 subClassOf R only C2; C1.2 subClassOf C1; C1.2 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3;<br /> <br /> 3) create C4 such as C4 isEqualTo C2 or C3; C1 subClassOf R only C4; C2 disjointWith C3.<br /> <br /> 4) create two subproperty of R: R2 subPropertyOf R; R3 subProperty of R; C1 subClassOf R2 only C2; C1 subClassOf R3 only C3; C2 disjointWith C3.<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> <br /> Wet_Zone subClassOf Wetlands and are_inundated only Sea_Water and are_inundated only Surface_Water and are_inundated min 1 Thing; <br /> <br /> see Zona_Humeda concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> Wet_Zone subClassOf Wetlands and are_inundated only (Sea_Water or Surface_Water) and are_inundated min 1 Thing;<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Review assigned]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=6020 2009-11-12T16:47:29Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:AntipatternOIL.JPG]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> |AlsoKnownAs=OIL<br /> |Author=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=Our work is based on the debugging process of real ontologies that have been developed by domain experts, who are not necessarily too familiar with DL, and hence can misuse DL constructors and misunderstand the semantics of some OWL expressions, leading to unwanted unsatisfiable classes. Our patterns were first found during the debugging process of a medium-sized OWL ontology (165 classes) developed by a domain expert in the area of hydrology called HydrOntology. The first version of this ontology had a total of 114 unsatisfiable classes. The information provided by the debugging systems used on (root) unsatisfiable classes was not easily understandable by domain experts to find the reasons for their unsatisfiability. And in several occasions during the debugging process the generation of justifications for unsatisfiability took several hours, what made these tools hard to use. Using this debugging process and several other real ontologies debugging one, we found out that in several occasions domain experts were just changing axioms from the original ontology in a somehow random manner, even changing the intended meaning of the definitions instead of correcting errors in their formalisations. <br /> <br /> We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. Thus they are antipatterns. A Koenig define antipatterns as patterns that appear obvious but are ineffective or far from optimal in practice, representing worst practice about how to structure and build software. We also have made an effort to identify common alternatives for providing solutions to them, so that they can be used by domain experts to debug their ontologies. <br /> <br /> All these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation.<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> <br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> <br /> other alternative solutions could be:<br /> <br /> 1) suppress the disjointness axiom.<br /> <br /> 2) create two sublass of C1 such as: C1.1 subClassOf C1; C1.1 subClassOf R only C2; C1.2 subClassOf C1; C1.2 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3;<br /> <br /> 3) create C4 such as C4 isEqualTo C2 or C3; C1 subClassOf R only C4; C2 disjointWith C3.<br /> <br /> 4) create two subproperty of R: R2 subPropertyOf R; R3 subProperty of R; C1 subClassOf R2 only C2; C1 subClassOf R3 only C3; C2 disjointWith C3.<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> <br /> Wet_Zone subClassOf Wetlands and are_inundated only Sea_Water and are_inundated only Surface_Water and <br /> are_inundated min 1 Thing; <br /> <br /> see Zona_Humeda concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> Wet_Zone subClassOf Wetlands and are_inundated only (Sea_Water or Surface_Water) and are_inundated min 1 Thing; <br /> <br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Review assigned]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=6019 2009-11-12T16:42:44Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:AntipatternOIL.JPG]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> |AlsoKnownAs=OIL<br /> |Author=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=Our work is based on the debugging process of real ontologies that have been developed by domain experts, who are not necessarily too familiar with DL, and hence can misuse DL constructors and misunderstand the semantics of some OWL expressions, leading to unwanted unsatisfiable classes. Our patterns were first found during the debugging process of a medium-sized OWL ontology (165 classes) developed by a domain expert in the area of hydrology called HydrOntology. The first version of this ontology had a total of 114 unsatisfiable classes. The information provided by the debugging systems used on (root) unsatisfiable classes was not easily understandable by domain experts to find the reasons for their unsatisfiability. And in several occasions during the debugging process the generation of justifications for unsatisfiability took several hours, what made these tools hard to use. Using this debugging process and several other real ontologies debugging one, we found out that in several occasions domain experts were just changing axioms from the original ontology in a somehow random manner, even changing the intended meaning of the definitions instead of correcting errors in their formalisations. <br /> <br /> We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. Thus they are antipatterns. A Koenig define antipatterns as patterns that appear obvious but are ineffective or far from optimal in practice, representing worst practice about how to structure and build software. We also have made an effort to identify common alternatives for providing solutions to them, so that they can be used by domain experts to debug their ontologies. <br /> <br /> All these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation.<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> <br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> <br /> other alternative solutions could be:<br /> <br /> 1) suppress the disjointness axiom.<br /> <br /> 2) create two sublass of C1 such as: C1.1 subClassOf C1; C1.1 subClassOf R only C2; C1.2 subClassOf C1; C1.2 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3;<br /> <br /> 3) create C4 such as C4 isEqualTo C2 or C3; C1 subClassOf R only C4; C2 disjointWith C3.<br /> <br /> 4) create two subproperty of R: R2 subPropertyOf R; R3 subProperty of R; C1 subClassOf R2 only C2; C1 subClassOf R3 only C3; C2 disjointWith C3.<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Review assigned]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=6018 2009-11-12T16:41:32Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:AntipatternOIL.JPG]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> |AlsoKnownAs=OIL<br /> |Author=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=Our work is based on the debugging process of real ontologies that have been developed by domain experts, who are not necessarily too familiar with DL, and hence can misuse DL constructors and misunderstand the semantics of some OWL expressions, leading to unwanted unsatisfiable classes. Our patterns were first found during the debugging process of a medium-sized OWL ontology (165 classes) developed by a domain expert in the area of hydrology called HydrOntology. The first version of this ontology had a total of 114 unsatisfiable classes. The information provided by the debugging systems used on (root) unsatisfiable classes was not easily understandable by domain experts to find the reasons for their unsatisfiability. And in several occasions during the debugging process the generation of justifications for unsatisfiability took several hours, what made these tools hard to use. Using this debugging process and several other real ontologies debugging one, we found out that in several occasions domain experts were just changing axioms from the original ontology in a somehow random manner, even changing the intended meaning of the definitions instead of correcting errors in their formalisations. <br /> <br /> We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. Thus they are antipatterns. A Koenig define antipatterns as patterns that appear obvious but are ineffective or far from optimal in practice, representing worst practice about how to structure and build software. We also have made an effort to identify common alternatives for providing solutions to them, so that they can be used by domain experts to debug their ontologies. <br /> <br /> All these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation.<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> <br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> <br /> others altrenative solution could be:<br /> 1) suppress the disjointness axiom.<br /> <br /> 2) create two sublass of C1 such as: C1.1 subClassOf C1; C1.1 subClassOf R only C2; C1.2 subClassOf C1; C1.2 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3;<br /> <br /> 3) create C4 such as C4 isEqualTo C2 or C3; C1 subClassOf R only C4; C2 disjointWith C3.<br /> <br /> 4) create two subproperty of R: R2 subPropertyOf R; R3 subProperty of R; C1 subClassOf R2 only C2; C1 subClassOf R3 only C3; C2 disjointWith C3.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Review assigned]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=6017 2009-11-12T16:30:07Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:AntipatternOIL.JPG]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> |AlsoKnownAs=OIL<br /> |Author=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=Our work is based on the debugging process of real ontologies that have been developed by domain experts, who are not necessarily too familiar with DL, and hence can misuse DL constructors and misunderstand the semantics of some OWL expressions, leading to unwanted unsatisfiable classes. Our patterns were first found during the debugging process of a medium-sized OWL ontology (165 classes) developed by a domain expert in the area of hydrology. The first version of this ontology had a total of 114 unsatisfiable classes. The information provided by the debugging systems used on (root) unsatisfiable classes was not easily understandable by domain experts to find the reasons for their unsatisfiability. And in several occasions during the debugging process the generation of justifications for unsatisfiability took several hours, what made these tools hard to use, confirming the results described in \cite{STU08}. Using this debugging process and several other real ontologies debugging one, we found out that in several occasions domain experts were just changing axioms from the original ontology in a somehow random manner, even changing the intended meaning of the definitions instead of correcting errors in their formalisations. <br /> <br /> We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. Thus they are antipatterns. A Koenig define antipatterns as patterns that appear obvious but are ineffective or far from optimal in practice, representing worst practice about how to structure and build software. We also have made an effort to identify common alternatives for providing solutions to them, so that they can be used by domain experts to debug their ontologies. <br /> <br /> All these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. <br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Review assigned]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:DisjointnessOfComplement_(DOC)&diff=5355 2009-07-31T16:17:42Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: New page: {{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} {{Include Image}} {{Logical OP General Template |Name=DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho, }} {{Logical OP Descript...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image}}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho, <br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. <br /> |Aim=The ontology developer may want to say that C1 and C2 cannot share instances, instead of defining C1 as the logical negation of C2. Hence it could be more appropriate to state that C1 and C2 are disjoint.<br /> |Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo not C2<br /> should be replace by<br /> C1 disjointWith C2<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Salt_Lagoon isEquivalentTo not Fresh_Waters<br /> see concept Laguna_Salada in Hydrontology<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:SynonymOrEquivalence_(SOE)&diff=5354 2009-07-31T16:13:28Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: Article is waiting for review.</p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Image:AntipatternSOE.jpg]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer wants to express that two classes C1 and C2 are identical. This is not very useful in a single ontology that does not import others. Indeed, what the ontology developer generally wants to represent is a terminological synonymy relation: the class C1 has two labels: C1 and C2. Usually one of the classes is not used anywhere else in the axioms defined in the ontology.<br /> |Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo C2<br /> The proposal for avoiding this antipattern is the following (if C2 is the less used term in the ontology) add all the comments and labels of C2 into C1 and remove C2<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Subterranean_Watercourses isEquivalentTo Subterranean_Rivers<br /> see Corriente_Subterranea concept in Hydrontology<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:SynonymOrEquivalence_(SOE)&diff=5353 2009-07-31T16:13:20Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Image:AntipatternSOE.jpg]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer wants to express that two classes C1 and C2 are identical. This is not very useful in a single ontology that does not import others. Indeed, what the ontology developer generally wants to represent is a terminological synonymy relation: the class C1 has two labels: C1 and C2. Usually one of the classes is not used anywhere else in the axioms defined in the ontology.<br /> |Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo C2<br /> The proposal for avoiding this antipattern is the following (if C2 is the less used term in the ontology) add all the comments and labels of C2 into C1 and remove C2<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Subterranean_Watercourses isEquivalentTo Subterranean_Rivers<br /> see Corriente_Subterranea concept in Hydrontology<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5352 2009-07-31T16:11:58Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:AntipatternOIL.JPG]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:SynonymOrEquivalence_(SOE)&diff=5351 2009-07-31T16:10:00Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Image:AntipatternSOE.jpg]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer wants to express that two classes C1 and C2 are identical. This is not very useful in a single ontology that does not import others. Indeed, what the ontology developer generally wants to represent is a terminological synonymy relation: the class C1 has two labels: C1 and C2. Usually one of the classes is not used anywhere else in the axioms defined in the ontology.<br /> |Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo C2<br /> The proposal for avoiding this antipattern is the following (if C2 is the less used term in the ontology) add all the comments and labels of C2 into C1 and remove C2<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Subterranean_Watercourses isEquivalentTo Subterranean_Rivers<br /> see Corriente_Subterranea concept in Hydrontology<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:SynonymOrEquivalence_(SOE)&diff=5350 2009-07-31T16:07:54Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Image:AntipatternSOE.jpg]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer wants to express that two classes C1 and C2 are identical. This is not very useful in a single ontology that does not import others. Indeed, what the ontology developer generally wants to represent is a terminological synonymy relation: the class C1 has two labels: C1 and C2. Usually one of the classes is not used anywhere else in the axioms defined in the ontology.<br /> |Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo C2<br /> The proposal for avoiding this antipattern is the following (if C2 is the less used term in the ontology) add all the comments and labels of C2 into C1 and remove C2<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template}}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:SynonymOrEquivalence_(SOE)&diff=5349 2009-07-31T16:07:27Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: New page: {{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} {{Include Image |ImageName=AntipatternSOE.jpg }} {{Logical OP General Template |Name=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE) |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corch...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=AntipatternSOE.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer wants to express that two classes C1 and C2 are identical. This is not very useful in a single ontology that does not import others. Indeed, what the ontology developer generally wants to represent is a terminological synonymy relation: the class C1 has two labels: C1 and C2. Usually one of the classes is not used anywhere else in the axioms defined in the ontology. <br /> |Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo C2<br /> The proposal for avoiding this antipattern is the following (if C2 is the less used term in the ontology) add all the comments and labels of C2 into C1 and remove C2<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template}}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5348 2009-07-31T16:02:22Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:antipatternOIL.JPG]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5347 2009-07-31T16:01:55Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:antipatternOIL.JPEG]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5346 2009-07-31T15:58:51Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Media:antipatternOIL.jpeg]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5345 2009-07-31T15:58:12Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=[[Image:antipatternOIL.jpeg]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5344 2009-07-31T15:55:40Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=antipatternOIL.jpeg<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5343 2009-07-31T15:54:34Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=antipatternOIL.jpeg<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class.<br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template<br /> |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology.<br /> <br /> <br /> |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/<br /> |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters<br /> <br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5342 2009-07-31T15:43:13Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=antipatternOIL.jpeg<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=<br /> We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. We have categorized them into three groups:<br /> |Aim=The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the parent class. <br /> |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3<br /> If it makes sense, we propose to the domain expert to transform the two universal restrictions into only one that refers to the disjunction of C2 and C3. <br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template}}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]<br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5341 2009-07-31T15:34:56Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: Article is waiting for review.</p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=antipatternOIL.jpeg<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template}}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template}}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> [[Category:Waiting for review]]</div>

CatherineRoussey http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5340 2009-07-31T15:34:05Z

<p>CatherineRoussey: The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1 instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances</p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image<br /> |ImageName=antipatternOIL.jpeg<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template}}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template}}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}</div>

CatherineRoussey