'Ontology Design Patterns' - User contributions [en]

Reviews:OlafNoppens about Literal Reification

2010-09-16T13:43:02Z

OlafNoppens: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/16 |SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens |ContentOPUnderReview=Literal Reification |RevisionID=10062 |Score=2 - accept for certification |Revi...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2010/9/16
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
|ContentOPUnderReview=Literal Reification
|RevisionID=10062
|Score=2 - accept for certification
|ReviewSummary=The pattern states how to express reification of literal values in OWL by introducing an intermediate individual (type of Literal) which is connected (via hasLiteralValue) to a blank literal value, or via hasSameLiteralValue to another intermediate individual.

I have two minor remarks (which depends on each other):

(1) Literal is a subclass of (= 1 hasLiteralValue). I was wondering whether one could define literal equivalent to (= 1 hasLiteralValue or = 1 hasSameLiteralValue). The idea is that a literal has always either a literal value directly or indirectly (via hasSameLiteralValue)

(2)SWRL rules are used (in that sense it would also be valid if Literal is defined equivalent to = 1 hasLiteralValue because the SWRL rules guarantee this behaviour). I suggest to add a remark to the description and also to the diagram. Because the application of the pattern assumes SWRL + OWL.
|ReviewConfidence=high
|ReviewRelevance=high
|ReviewReusability=high
|ReviewUnderstandability=good
|ReviewClearProblem=good
|ReviewClearRelevance=good
|ReviewFigures=good - I suggest as mentioned above that the desription and the figures make a reference to rules / SWRL
}}

Reviews:OlafNoppens about Inverse n-ary relationship

2010-09-16T13:22:12Z

OlafNoppens: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/16 |SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship |RevisionID=10101 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |R...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2010/9/16
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
|ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship
|RevisionID=10101
|Score=1 - needs minor revision
|ReviewSummary=This pattern is an extension of the W3C n-ary relationship in that a n-ary realtionship can be summarized in a simple relationship between two individuals.

I can image that querying a knowledge base is easier - however, I encourage the author to clarify and explain how this aim is achieved (give an example, etc.). However, there is one problem with the pattern and that's the name: the pattern does not describe an inverse n-ary relationship but a special kind of it where only two distinguished individuals are considered with "additional, and probably optional, argument".

|ReviewConfidence=high
|ReviewProblems=There are two problems: first, it's the name as mentioned above, second I would recommend to use the same notation as in the W3C n-ary relationship which is cited. This would make the difference and the understanding clearer.
|ReviewRelevance=good
|ReviewBestPractice=good
|ReviewRelations=Unfortunately the n-ary relationship is not available on ontologydesignpatterns.org
|ReviewMissing=Example in OWL
}}

Reviews:OlafNoppens about Symmetric n-ary relationship

2010-09-16T12:54:55Z

OlafNoppens: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/16 |SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens |ContentOPUnderReview=Symmetric n-ary relationship |RevisionID=10066 |Score=0 - needs major revision ...

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2010/9/16
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
|ContentOPUnderReview=Symmetric n-ary relationship
|RevisionID=10066
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=The patterns tries to express a symmetric n-ary relationship, i.e., that an individual A is related to an individual B with some additional attributes, and that B is related to A with exactly the same attributes. As a matter of course, it can be modelled with a traditional n-ary relationship pattern - but the symmetry has to be modelled explicitly. The patterns tries to eliminate this kind of redundancy.

However, it is not clear what the semantics of a "symmetric n-ary relationship" is. The use case (connection points and their distance) can't help because there are no n arguments. In that sense I understand it as a binary relationship with an additional attribute. The name "symmetric n-nary relationship" is misleading.

But even then it is not clear how the symmetry is guaranteered with the equivalent axiom: It seems to be a special case of a n-ary relationship where two instantiations wrt. one property is demanded.
|ReviewConfidence=high
|ReviewProblems=As already said the main problem is the semantics of a "symmetric n-ary relationship". It also lacks for an explanation/proof of the implementation (which is not clear for me).
|ReviewRelevance=high
|ReviewMissing=As the pattern is related to the W3C n-ary relationship I suggest to use the same type of diagram and/or examples. Moreover, an example in OWL and/or OWL building blocks are missing.
}}

Submissions:NegativePropertyAssertions

2009-10-10T21:10:24Z

OlafNoppens:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image
|ImageName=Npa-diagram.png
}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=NegativePropertyAssertions
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens,
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=The motivation of this pattern is to model ''negative property assertions'' (NPAs) in ontology languages such as OWL 1 [1] that do not provide a special constructor for expressing it. It is worth mentioning that not all knowledge base systems can be migrated to OWL 2 [2] for several reasons. On the other hand, NPAs modeled according to this pattern can be migrated to OWL 2 using the newly introduced constructor.
A negative property assertion as defined in the upcoming OWL 2 states that a given individual ''i'' is never connected to a given individual ''j'' by a given property expression ''P''. In other words, asserting that ''i'' is connected to ''j'' by ''P'' results in an inconsistent ontology. In this sense this assertion can be considered as a constraint that should not be violated. In contrast, considering an ontology where it cannot be inferred that ''i'' is connected to ''j'' by ''P'' does not necessarily mean that there cannot be such a connection - in fact, it is merely not modeled.

[1] Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language
Semantics and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004.

[2] Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Structural Speciﬁcation and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 June 2009, 2009.
|Aim=Expressing NPAs in ontologies prior to OWL 2 as well as given an transformation rule when using OWL 2.
|Solution=NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(prop i1 i2) is equivalent to (using OWL 2 Abstract Syntax):

SubClassOf(ObjectOneOf(i1), ObjectComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop, ObjectOneOf(i2))))

Let ''C'' and ''D'' be concepts. Then ''C'' and ''D'' are disjoint if, and only if, ''C'' is subsumed by the complement of ''D'', i.e., '(
SubClassOf( C ObjectComplementOf(D) ).

The equivalence is correct because of the duality of disjointness, equivalence, and unsatisfiability: ''C'' is subsumed by ''D'' if, and only if,
ObjectIntersectionOf( C ObjectComplementOf(D) ) is unsatisfiable, and the intersection of ''C'' and ''D'' is unsatisfiable if, and only if, ''C' and ''D'' are disjoint.

One also reminds that the extension of the concept
ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop C) is the set of individuals ''i'' which are connected to an individual ''j'' that is in the extension of the concept ''C'', by the property ''prop''.

Let ''NegativePropertyAssertion(p a b)'' be a negative property assertion axiom, i.e., the individual ''a'' is not related to ''b'' by the property ''p''. Then the extension of
''ObjectSomeValuesFrom( p ObjectOneOf(b) )'' which contain all individuals that are connected to ''b'' by ''p'' must not contain ''a''. This is true, if, and only if ''ObjectOneOf(a)'' is disjoint to ObjectSomeValuesFrom( p ObjectOneOf(b) )''
|Elements=Individiual i1

Individual i2

ObjectProperty prop
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=Consider a social network containing facts about people and their relationships.
Let ''Adam'' and ''Eve'' be two persons and like a property (''A likes B''). Furthermore we know that ''Adam'' does not like ''Eve'' but we have no dislike relationship. Moreover, our language (such as OWL 1) does not have any NPA axiom constructor.
The sample ontology is interpreted with respect to the open-world semantics,
i. e. , one can not infer the dislike merely from the lack of a property assertion axiom ''ObjectPropertyAssertion(like Adam Eve)''. Then this fact can be expressed with the following axiom (we will also use the OWL 2 Abstract Syntax here):

''SubClassOf (Adam ComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom( likes ObjectOneOf(Eve))))''
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
[[Category:Review assigned]]
{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

File:Npa-diagram.png

2009-10-10T21:09:37Z

OlafNoppens: Diagram for the NPA pattern

Diagram for the NPA pattern

Submissions:Partition

2009-10-10T21:08:40Z

OlafNoppens:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image
|ImageName=Partition-diagram.png
}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Partition
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=The Partition Pattern is a logical pattern that introduces axioms which model a partition of concepts. A partition is a general structure which is divided into several disjoint parts. With respect to ontologies the structure is a concept which is divided into several pair-wise disjoint concepts. This pattern reflects the simplest case where a named concept is defined as a partition of concepts.
|Aim=The Partition Pattern describes how to model a partition, i.e., a named concept which is divided into several disjoint concepts. Applying this pattern to an ontology will introduce the necessary axioms.
|Solution=Let ''P'' be a named concept that is the partition which is divided into several concepts ''C_i''. Then the partition is defined by introducing the following axioms (expressed in KRSS [1]):

''(define-concept P (or C0 C1 ... Cn) )''
''(disjoint Ci Cj)'' ( 0 ≤ i,j ≤ n, i ≠ j ).

Here ''(disjoint C_i C_j)''a placeholder for the pair-wise disjointness of all ''C_i''. Note that ''C_i'' can also be arbitrary concept expressions (even if this is not allowed in the original KRSS syntax).

In OWL 2 [2] the axioms can be expressed as follows (using OWL 2 Abstract Syntax):

''EquivalentClasses(P, ObjectUnionOf(C1, ..., Cn))''

''DisjointClasses(C1, ..., Cn)''

[1] Patel-Schneider, P. F., Swartout, B.: Description-Logic Knowledge Representation System Specification, 1993

[2] Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 June 2009.
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=In an ontology about family relationship we deﬁned concepts such as ''Person'',
''Aunt'' and ''ParentOfSon'' which are characterized by a relationships such as ''hasChild''(resp. the inverse relationship ''hasParent''), ''hasSibling'', '
''married-with'' as well as by the gender of people (''Male'' respectively ''Female''). There are a lot of similar ontologies about family relationships.

''EquivalentClasses(Parent-Of-Son ''ObjectSomeValuesFrom (has-Child Male) )''
''EquivalentClasses(Parent-Of-Daughter ''ObjectSomeValuesFrom(has-Child Female) )''
''EquivalentClasses(Aunt ObjectIntersectionOf(Uncle-Or-Aunt Female))''
''EquivalentClasses(Uncle-Or-Aunt ObjectIntersectionOf(Person ObjectSomeValuesFrom(has-Sibling Parent)))''

The concept ''Gender'' is partitioned in ''Male'' and ''Female''. Applying this pattern results in the following axioms:

''EquivalentClasses(Gender, ObjectUnionOf(Male Female)) ''
''DisjointClasses(Male Female)''
|SolutionExample=http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Noppens/generation.owl
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:MartaSabou_about_Partition
}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:HenrikEriksson_about_Partition
}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:LuigiIannone_about_Partition_2
}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

Submissions:NegativePropertyAssertions

2009-10-07T13:35:19Z

OlafNoppens:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=NegativePropertyAssertions
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens,
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=The motivation of this pattern is to model ''negative property assertions'' (NPAs) in ontology languages such as OWL 1 [1] that do not provide a special constructor for expressing it. It is worth mentioning that not all knowledge base systems can be migrated to OWL 2 [2] for several reasons. On the other hand, NPAs modeled according to this pattern can be migrated to OWL 2 using the newly introduced constructor.
A negative property assertion as defined in the upcoming OWL 2 states that a given individual ''i'' is never connected to a given individual ''j'' by a given property expression ''P''. In other words, asserting that ''i'' is connected to ''j'' by ''P'' results in an inconsistent ontology. In this sense this assertion can be considered as a constraint that should not be violated. In contrast, considering an ontology where it cannot be inferred that ''i'' is connected to ''j'' by ''P'' does not necessarily mean that there cannot be such a connection - in fact, it is merely not modeled.

[1] Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language
Semantics and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004.

[2] Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Structural Speciﬁcation and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 June 2009, 2009.
|Aim=Expressing NPAs in ontologies prior to OWL 2 as well as given an transformation rule when using OWL 2.
|Solution=NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(prop i1 i2) is equivalent to (using OWL 2 Abstract Syntax):

SubClassOf(ObjectOneOf(i1), ObjectComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop, ObjectOneOf(i2))))

Let ''C'' and ''D'' be concepts. Then ''C'' and ''D'' are disjoint if, and only if, ''C'' is subsumed by the complement of ''D'', i.e., '(
SubClassOf( C ObjectComplementOf(D) ).

The equivalence is correct because of the duality of disjointness, equivalence, and unsatisfiability: ''C'' is subsumed by ''D'' if, and only if,
ObjectIntersectionOf( C ObjectComplementOf(D) ) is unsatisfiable, and the intersection of ''C'' and ''D'' is unsatisfiable if, and only if, ''C' and ''D'' are disjoint.

One also reminds that the extension of the concept
ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop C) is the set of individuals ''i'' which are connected to an individual ''j'' that is in the extension of the concept ''C'', by the property ''prop''.

Let ''NegativePropertyAssertion(p a b)'' be a negative property assertion axiom, i.e., the individual ''a'' is not related to ''b'' by the property ''p''. Then the extension of
''ObjectSomeValuesFrom( p ObjectOneOf(b) )'' which contain all individuals that are connected to ''b'' by ''p'' must not contain ''a''. This is true, if, and only if ''ObjectOneOf(a)'' is disjoint to ObjectSomeValuesFrom( p ObjectOneOf(b) )''
|Elements=Individiual i1

Individual i2

ObjectProperty prop
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=Consider a social network containing facts about people and their relationships.
Let ''Adam'' and ''Eve'' be two persons and like a property (''A likes B''). Furthermore we know that ''Adam'' does not like ''Eve'' but we have no dislike relationship. Moreover, our language (such as OWL 1) does not have any NPA axiom constructor.
The sample ontology is interpreted with respect to the open-world semantics,
i. e. , one can not infer the dislike merely from the lack of a property assertion axiom ''ObjectPropertyAssertion(like Adam Eve)''. Then this fact can be expressed with the following axiom (we will also use the OWL 2 Abstract Syntax here):

''SubClassOf (Adam ComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom( likes ObjectOneOf(Eve))))''
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
[[Category:Review assigned]]
{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

Submissions:NegativePropertyAssertions

2009-10-07T13:32:00Z

OlafNoppens:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=NegativePropertyAssertions
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens,
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=The motivation of this pattern is to model ''negative property assertions'' (NPAs) in ontology languages such as OWL 1 [1] that do not provide a special constructor for expressing it. It is worth mentioning that not all knowledge base systems can be migrated to OWL 2 [2] for several reasons. On the other hand, NPAs modeled according to this pattern can be migrated to OWL 2 using the newly introduced constructor.
A negative property assertion as defined in the upcoming OWL 2 states that a given individual ''i'' is never connected to a given individual ''j'' by a given property expression ''P''. In other words, asserting that ''i'' is connected to ''j'' by ''P'' results in an inconsistent ontology. In this sense this assertion can be considered as a constraint that should not be violated. In contrast, considering an ontology where it cannot be inferred that ''i'' is connected to ''j'' by ''P'' does not necessarily mean that there cannot be such a connection - in fact, it is merely not modeled.

[1] Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language
Semantics and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004.

[2] Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Structural Speciﬁcation and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 June 2009, 2009.
|Aim=Expressing NPAs in ontologies prior to OWL 2 as well as given an transformation rule when using OWL 2.
|Solution=NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(prop i1 i2) is equivalent to (using OWL 2 Abstract Syntax):

SubClassOf(ObjectOneOf(i1), ObjectComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop, ObjectOneOf(i2))))

Let ''C'' and ''D'' be concepts. Then ''C'' and ''D'' are disjoint if, and only if, ''C'' is subsumed by the complement of ''D'', i.e., '(
SubClassOf( C ObjectComplementOf(D) ).

The equivalence is correct because of the duality of disjointness, equivalence, and unsatisfiability: ''C'' is subsumed by ''D'' if, and only if,
ObjectIntersectionOf( C ObjectComplementOf(D) ) is unsatisfiable, and the intersection of ''C'' and ''D'' is unsatisfiable if, and only if, ''C' and ''D'' are disjoint.

One also reminds that the extension of the concept
ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop C) is the set of individuals ''i'' which are connected to an individual ''j'' that is in the extension of the concept ''C'', by the property ''prop''.

Let ''NegativePropertyAssertion(p a b)'' be a negative property assertion axiom, i.e., the individual ''a'' is not related to ''b'' by the property ''p''. Then the extension of
''ObjectSomeValuesFrom( p ObjectOneOf(b) )'' which contain all individuals that are connected to ''b'' by ''p'' must not contain ''a''. This is true, if, and only if ''ObjectOneOf(a)'' is disjoint to ObjectSomeValuesFrom( p ObjectOneOf(b) )''
|Elements=Individiual i1

Individual i2

ObjectProperty prop
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
[[Category:Review assigned]]
{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

Submissions:NegativePropertyAssertions

2009-10-07T13:30:41Z

OlafNoppens:

Submissions:Partition

2009-10-07T10:28:24Z

OlafNoppens:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image
|ImageName=Image:Partition-diagram.png
}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Partition
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=The Partition Pattern is a logical pattern that introduces axioms which model a partition of concepts. A partition is a general structure which is divided into several disjoint parts. With respect to ontologies the structure is a concept which is divided into several pair-wise disjoint concepts. This pattern reflects the simplest case where a named concept is defined as a partition of concepts.
|Aim=The Partition Pattern describes how to model a partition, i.e., a named concept which is divided into several disjoint concepts. Applying this pattern to an ontology will introduce the necessary axioms.
|Solution=Let ''P'' be a named concept that is the partition which is divided into several concepts ''C_i''. Then the partition is defined by introducing the following axioms (expressed in KRSS [1]):

''(define-concept P (or C0 C1 ... Cn) )''
''(disjoint Ci Cj)'' ( 0 ≤ i,j ≤ n, i ≠ j ).

Here ''(disjoint C_i C_j)''a placeholder for the pair-wise disjointness of all ''C_i''. Note that ''C_i'' can also be arbitrary concept expressions (even if this is not allowed in the original KRSS syntax).

In OWL 2 [2] the axioms can be expressed as follows (using OWL 2 Abstract Syntax):

''EquivalentClasses(P, ObjectUnionOf(C1, ..., Cn))''

''DisjointClasses(C1, ..., Cn)''

[1] Patel-Schneider, P. F., Swartout, B.: Description-Logic Knowledge Representation System Specification, 1993

[2] Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 June 2009.
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=In an ontology about family relationship we deﬁned concepts such as ''Person'',
''Aunt'' and ''ParentOfSon'' which are characterized by a relationships such as ''hasChild''(resp. the inverse relationship ''hasParent''), ''hasSibling'', '
''married-with'' as well as by the gender of people (''Male'' respectively ''Female''). There are a lot of similar ontologies about family relationships.

''EquivalentClasses(Parent-Of-Son ''ObjectSomeValuesFrom (has-Child Male) )''
''EquivalentClasses(Parent-Of-Daughter ''ObjectSomeValuesFrom(has-Child Female) )''
''EquivalentClasses(Aunt ObjectIntersectionOf(Uncle-Or-Aunt Female))''
''EquivalentClasses(Uncle-Or-Aunt ObjectIntersectionOf(Person ObjectSomeValuesFrom(has-Sibling Parent)))''

The concept ''Gender'' is partitioned in ''Male'' and ''Female''. Applying this pattern results in the following axioms:

''EquivalentClasses(Gender, ObjectUnionOf(Male Female)) ''
''DisjointClasses(Male Female)''
|SolutionExample=http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Noppens/generation.owl
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:MartaSabou_about_Partition
}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:HenrikEriksson_about_Partition
}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:LuigiIannone_about_Partition_2
}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

File:Partition-diagram.png

2009-10-07T10:27:38Z

OlafNoppens: uploaded a new version of "Image:Partition-diagram.png": Diagram for the Partition pattern.

Diagram of the Partition pattern

File:Partition-diagram.png

2009-10-07T10:26:57Z

OlafNoppens: Diagram of the Partition pattern

Diagram of the Partition pattern

Submissions:Partition

2009-10-07T10:25:18Z

OlafNoppens:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Partition
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=The Partition Pattern is a logical pattern that introduces axioms which model a partition of concepts. A partition is a general structure which is divided into several disjoint parts. With respect to ontologies the structure is a concept which is divided into several pair-wise disjoint concepts. This pattern reflects the simplest case where a named concept is defined as a partition of concepts.
|Aim=The Partition Pattern describes how to model a partition, i.e., a named concept which is divided into several disjoint concepts. Applying this pattern to an ontology will introduce the necessary axioms.
|Solution=Let ''P'' be a named concept that is the partition which is divided into several concepts ''C_i''. Then the partition is defined by introducing the following axioms (expressed in KRSS [1]):

''(define-concept P (or C0 C1 ... Cn) )''
''(disjoint Ci Cj)'' ( 0 ≤ i,j ≤ n, i ≠ j ).

Here ''(disjoint C_i C_j)''a placeholder for the pair-wise disjointness of all ''C_i''. Note that ''C_i'' can also be arbitrary concept expressions (even if this is not allowed in the original KRSS syntax).

In OWL 2 [2] the axioms can be expressed as follows (using OWL 2 Abstract Syntax):

''EquivalentClasses(P, ObjectUnionOf(C1, ..., Cn))''

''DisjointClasses(C1, ..., Cn)''

[1] Patel-Schneider, P. F., Swartout, B.: Description-Logic Knowledge Representation System Specification, 1993

[2] Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 June 2009.
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=In an ontology about family relationship we deﬁned concepts such as ''Person'',
''Aunt'' and ''ParentOfSon'' which are characterized by a relationships such as ''hasChild''(resp. the inverse relationship ''hasParent''), ''hasSibling'', '
''married-with'' as well as by the gender of people (''Male'' respectively ''Female''). There are a lot of similar ontologies about family relationships.

''EquivalentClasses(Parent-Of-Son ''ObjectSomeValuesFrom (has-Child Male) )''
''EquivalentClasses(Parent-Of-Daughter ''ObjectSomeValuesFrom(has-Child Female) )''
''EquivalentClasses(Aunt ObjectIntersectionOf(Uncle-Or-Aunt Female))''
''EquivalentClasses(Uncle-Or-Aunt ObjectIntersectionOf(Person ObjectSomeValuesFrom(has-Sibling Parent)))''

The concept ''Gender'' is partitioned in ''Male'' and ''Female''. Applying this pattern results in the following axioms:

''EquivalentClasses(Gender, ObjectUnionOf(Male Female)) ''
''DisjointClasses(Male Female)''
|SolutionExample=http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Noppens/generation.owl
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:MartaSabou_about_Partition
}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:HenrikEriksson_about_Partition
}}
{{Takes in account review
|TakesInAccountReview=http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Reviews:LuigiIannone_about_Partition_2
}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

Submissions:Partition

2009-10-07T10:23:17Z

OlafNoppens: The Partition Pattern describes how to model a partition. The pattern reﬂects the simplest case where a named concept is the partition of (arbitrary) concepts. Future work will be concerned with a m

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Partition
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=The Partition Pattern is a logical pattern that introduces axioms which model a partition of concepts. A partition is a general structure which is divided into several disjoint parts. With respect to ontologies the structure is a concept which is divided into several pair-wise disjoint concepts. This pattern reflects the simplest case where a named concept is defined as a partition of concepts.
|Aim=The Partition Pattern describes how to model a partition, i.e., a named concept which is divided into several disjoint concepts. Applying this pattern to an ontology will introduce the necessary axioms.
|Solution=Let ''P'' be a named concept that is the partition which is divided into several concepts ''C_i''. Then the partition is defined by introducing the following axioms (expressed in KRSS [1]):

''(define-concept P (or C0 C1 ... Cn) )''
''(disjoint Ci Cj)'' ( 0 ≤ i,j ≤ n, i ≠ j ).

Here ''(disjoint C_i C_j)''a placeholder for the pair-wise disjointness of all ''C_i''. Note that ''C_i'' can also be arbitrary concept expressions (even if this is not allowed in the original KRSS syntax).

In OWL 2 [2] the axioms can be expressed as follows (using OWL 2 Abstract Syntax):

''EquivalentClasses(P, ObjectUnionOf(C1, ..., Cn))''

''DisjointClasses(C1, ..., Cn)''

[1] Patel-Schneider, P. F., Swartout, B.: Description-Logic Knowledge Representation System Specification, 1993

[2] Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 June 2009.
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|ProblemExample=In an ontology about family relationship we deﬁned concepts such as ''Person'',
''Aunt'' and ''ParentOfSon'' which are characterized by a relationships such as ''hasChild''(resp. the inverse relationship ''hasParent''), ''hasSibling'', '
''married-with'' as well as by the gender of people (''Male'' respectively ''Female''). There are a lot of similar ontologies about family relationships.

''EquivalentClasses(Parent-Of-Son ''ObjectSomeValuesFrom (has-Child Male) )''
''EquivalentClasses(Parent-Of-Daughter ''ObjectSomeValuesFrom(has-Child Female) )''
''EquivalentClasses(Aunt ObjectIntersectionOf(Uncle-Or-Aunt Female))''
''EquivalentClasses(Uncle-Or-Aunt ObjectIntersectionOf(Person ObjectSomeValuesFrom(has-Sibling Parent)))''

The concept ''Gender'' is partitioned in ''Male'' and ''Female''. Applying this pattern results in the following axioms:

''EquivalentClasses(Gender, ObjectUnionOf(Male Female)) ''
''DisjointClasses(Male Female)''

|SolutionExample=http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Noppens/generation.owl
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

Submissions:Partition

2009-10-07T10:18:40Z

OlafNoppens:

Submissions:NegativePropertyAssertions

2009-08-21T16:23:04Z

OlafNoppens: Article is waiting for review.

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=NegativePropertyAssertions
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens,
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=Prior to OWL 2 negative property assertions (NPA) are difficult to model and, if it they are contained in an ontology, difficult to understand by humans. On the other side, using OWL 2 one can transform these ''helping'' axioms modeling NPAs into OWL2 NPA axiom.

This pattern describe NPA for ontologies not containing explicit NPA axioms as syntactical sugars and allows for transforming axioms into OWL NPA axioms.
|Aim=Expressing NPAs in ontologies prior to OWL 2 as well as given an transformation rule when using OWL 2.
|Solution=NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(i1 prop i2) is equivalent to:

SubClassOf(ObjectOneOf(i1), ObjectComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop, ObjectOneOf(i2)))))
|Elements=Individiual i1

Individual i2

ObjectProperty prop
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}
[[Category:Waiting for review]]

Submissions:Partition

2009-08-21T16:22:49Z

OlafNoppens: Article is waiting for review.

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Partition
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=This is a logical pattern to define a partition. It is independant of a specific domain. Partitions are a common modeling structure.
|Aim=The ontology engineer may say that a class is a partition over other classes (including class expressions). A partition is a structure dividing its content into several parts.
|Solution=We introduce two axioms where Partition is the Partition class and B1,...,Bn are arbitrary class expressions (n >= 2) (expressed in OWL 2 Abstract Syntax)

''EquivalentClasses(Partition, ObjectUnionOf(B1, ..., Bn))''

''DisjointClasses(B1, ..., Bn)''
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|SolutionExample=http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Noppens/owl/patterns/partition.owl
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}
[[Category:Waiting for review]]

Submissions:CyclicSubClassOf

2009-08-21T16:22:26Z

OlafNoppens: Article is waiting for review.

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=CyclicSubClassOf
|Problem=Sometimes there are several syntactical forms (e.g. syntactical sugar) with the same logical meaning. Refactoring patterns can transform one form to another, they are independant of a specific domain.

A explicitly defined cyclic SubClassOf chain is more difficult to discover and understand by a human than an EquivalentClassAxiom. Because it is explicitly defined there is not any dange in replacing it with an (explicitly defined) EquivalentClassAxioms.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=Not applicable for refactoring patterns
|Graphical Representation=Not applicable for refactoring patterns
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=The ontology before applying the pattern contains an explicitly defined cyclic SubClassOf chain with an arbitrary number of classes Ci (i > 0):

''SubClassOf(A C1)

SubClassOf(C1 C2)

SubClassOf(C2 C3)

...

SubClassOf(Cn A)''

|Graphical Representation=CyclisSubClassOf.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Replacing the cyclic SubClassOf chain with an EquivalentClassesAxiom:

EquivalentClasses( A C1 C2 C3 ... Cn)
|Graphical Representation=EquivalentClassesAxiom.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=Refactoring patterns are independant of a specific scenario resp. domain
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=Not applicable for refactoring patterns
|Graphical Representation=Not applicable for refactoring patterns
|Web Reference=http://Not applicable for refactoring patterns
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
|Graphical Representation=Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
|Web Reference=http://Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
|Graphical Representation=http://Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
|Author=OlafNoppens
}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
[[Category:Waiting for review]]

Submissions:NegativePropertyAssertions

2009-08-21T12:54:25Z

OlafNoppens:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=NegativePropertyAssertions
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens,
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=Prior to OWL 2 negative property assertions (NPA) are difficult to model and, if it they are contained in an ontology, difficult to understand by humans. On the other side, using OWL 2 one can transform these ''helping'' axioms modeling NPAs into OWL2 NPA axiom.

This pattern describe NPA for ontologies not containing explicit NPA axioms as syntactical sugars and allows for transforming axioms into OWL NPA axioms.
|Aim=Expressing NPAs in ontologies prior to OWL 2 as well as given an transformation rule when using OWL 2.
|Solution=NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(i1 prop i2) is equivalent to:

SubClassOf(ObjectOneOf(i1), ObjectComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop, ObjectOneOf(i2)))))
|Elements=Individiual i1

Individual i2

ObjectProperty prop
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

Submissions:NegativePropertyAssertions

2009-08-21T12:54:02Z

OlafNoppens: WOP2009:Main

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=NegativePropertyAssertions
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens,
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=Prior to OWL 2 negative property assertions (NPA) are difficult to model and, if it they are contained in an ontology, difficult to understand by humans. On the other side, using OWL 2 one can transform these ''helping'' axioms modeling NPAs into OWL2 NPA axiom.

This pattern describe NPA for ontologies not containing explicit NPA axioms as syntactical sugars and allows for transforming axioms into OWL NPA axioms.
|Aim=Expressing NPAs in ontologies prior to OWL 2 as well as given an transformation rule when using OWL 2.
|Solution=NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(i1 prop i2) is equivalent to:

SubClassOf(ObjectOneOf(i1), ObjectComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop, ObjectOneOf(i2)))))
|Elements=Individiual i1

Individual i2

ObjectProperty prop
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}

Submissions:CyclicSubClassOf

2009-08-21T12:42:10Z

OlafNoppens:

Submissions:CyclicSubClassOf

2009-08-21T12:37:45Z

OlafNoppens: New page: {{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} {{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template |Name=CyclicSubClassOf |Problem=Sometimes there are several syntactical forms (e.g. syntacti...

{{Reengineering_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal General Information Template
|Name=CyclicSubClassOf
|Problem=Sometimes there are several syntactical forms (e.g. syntactical sugar) with the same logical meaning. Refactoring patterns can transform one form to another, they are independant of a specific domain.

A explicitly defined cyclic SubClassOf chain is more difficult to discover and understand by a human than an EquivalentClassAxiom. Because it is explicitly defined there is not any dange in replacing it with an (explicitly defined) EquivalentClassAxioms.
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Template
|Description=Not applicable for refactoring patterns
|Graphical Representation=Not applicable for refactoring patterns
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Template
|Description=The ontology before applying the pattern contains an explicitly defined cyclic SubClassOf chain with an arbitrary number of classes Ci (i > 0):

SubClassOf(A C1)

SubClassOf(C1 C2)

SubClassOf(C2 C3)

...

SubClassOf(Cn A)
|Graphical Representation=Image:CyclisSubClassOf.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Template
|Description=Replacing the cyclic SubClassOf chain with an EquivalentClassesAxiom:

EquivalentClasses( A C1 C2 C3 ... Cn)
|Graphical Representation=Image:EquivalentClassesAxiom.png
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Scenario Example Template
|Description=Refactoring patterns are independant of a specific scenario resp. domain

}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal NOR Example Template
|Description=Not applicable for refactoring patterns
|Graphical Representation=Not applicable for refactoring patterns
|Web Reference=http://Not applicable for refactoring patterns
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Ontology Example Template
|Description=Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
|Graphical Representation=Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
|Web Reference=http://Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Process Example Template
|Description=Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
|Graphical Representation=http://Not applicable for this refactoring pattern
}}
{{Reengineering OP Proposal Additional Information Template
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
|Author=OlafNoppens
}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}

File:CyclisSubClassOf.png

2009-08-21T12:08:55Z

OlafNoppens:

File:EquivalentClassesAxiom.png

2009-08-21T12:08:09Z

OlafNoppens:

Submissions:Partition

2009-08-21T09:52:28Z

OlafNoppens:

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Partition
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=This is a logical pattern to define a partition. It is independant of a specific domain. Partitions are a common modeling structure.
|Aim=The ontology engineer may say that a class is a partition over other classes (including class expressions). A partition is a structure dividing its content into several parts.
|Solution=We introduce two axioms where Partition is the Partition class and B1,...,Bn are arbitrary class expressions (n >= 2) (expressed in OWL 2 Abstract Syntax)

''EquivalentClasses(Partition, ObjectUnionOf(B1, ..., Bn))''

''DisjointClasses(B1, ..., Bn)''
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|SolutionExample=http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Noppens/owl/patterns/partition.owl
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}
{{Submission to event
|Event=WOP2009:Main
}}

Submissions:Partition

2009-08-21T09:51:06Z

OlafNoppens: WOP2009:Main

{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}
{{Include Image}}
{{Logical OP General Template
|Name=Partition
|SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens
}}
{{Logical OP Description Template
|Motivation=This is a logical pattern to define a partition. It is independant of a specific domain. Partitions are a common modeling structure.
|Aim=The ontology engineer may say that a class is a partition over other classes (including class expressions). A partition is a structure dividing its content into several parts.
|Solution=We introduce two axioms where Partition is the Partition class and B1,...,Bn are arbitrary class expressions (n >= 2) (expressed in OWL 2 Abstract Syntax)

''EquivalentClasses(Partition, ObjectUnionOf(B1, ..., Bn))''

''DisjointClasses(B1, ..., Bn)''
}}
{{Logical OP Example Template
|SolutionExample=http://www.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ki/Noppens/owl/patterns/partition.owl
}}
{{Logical OP Reference Template}}

{{Scenarios about me}}
{{Reviews about me}}