(New page: {{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} {{Include Image}} {{Logical OP General Template |Name=DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) |SubmittedBy=Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho, }} {{Logical OP Descript...) |
EnricoDaga (Talk | contribs) m (Text replace - 'WOP2009:Main' to 'WOP:2009') |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} | {{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Graphical representation header}} |
| + | {{Graphical representation}} | ||
{{Logical OP General Template | {{Logical OP General Template | ||
|Name=DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) | |Name=DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) | ||
| − | |SubmittedBy= | + | |SubmittedBy=CatherineRoussey, OscarCorcho, |
}} | }} | ||
{{Logical OP Description Template | {{Logical OP Description Template | ||
| − | |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. | + | |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. |
|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. | |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. | ||
|Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo not C2 | |Solution=C1 isEquivalentTo not C2 | ||
| Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Logical OP Reference Template}} | {{Logical OP Reference Template}} | ||
| − | + | {{Additional information header}} | |
| + | [[Category:Review assigned]] | ||
{{Scenarios about me}} | {{Scenarios about me}} | ||
{{Reviews about me}} | {{Reviews about me}} | ||
| + | {{Modeling issues about me}} | ||
| + | {{My references}} | ||
{{Submission to event | {{Submission to event | ||
| − | |Event= | + | |Event=WOP:2009 |
}} | }} | ||
|
Last modified date is: 2010-05-31 |
Diagram (this article has no graphical representation)
| Name | DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) |
|---|---|
| Also known as | |
| Author(s) | |
| SubmittedBy | CatherineRoussey, OscarCorcho |
| 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. |
|---|---|
| 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. |
| Solution description | C1 isEquivalentTo not C2
should be replace by C1 disjointWith C2 |
| Elements | |
| Implementation | |
| Reusable component | |
| Component type |
| Problem example | Salt_Lagoon isEquivalentTo not Fresh_Waters
see concept Laguna_Salada in Hydrontology |
|---|---|
| Pattern solution example | http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/ |
| Consequences |
| Origin | |
|---|---|
| Known use | |
| Reference | |
| Related ODP | |
| Used in combination with | |
| Test |
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
This revision (revision ID 9703) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab
|
Submission to event |
|---|
'Ontology Design Patterns'
