| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Logical OP Description Template | {{Logical OP Description Template | ||
| − | |Motivation= | + | |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: |
| − | 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: | + | |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. |
| − | |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. | + | |
|Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3 | |Solution=C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3 | ||
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. | 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. | ||
C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3 | C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Logical OP Example Template}} | + | {{Logical OP Example Template |
| + | |ProblemExample=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters | ||
| + | |||
| + | see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |SolutionExample=http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/ | ||
| + | |Consequences=Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | }} | ||
{{Logical OP Reference Template}} | {{Logical OP Reference Template}} | ||
[[Category:Waiting for review]] | [[Category:Waiting for review]] | ||
{{Scenarios about me}} | {{Scenarios about me}} | ||
{{Reviews about me}} | {{Reviews about me}} | ||
|
Last modified date is: 2009-07-31 |
| Name | OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) |
|---|---|
| Also known as | |
| Author(s) | |
| SubmittedBy | Catherine Roussey, Oscar Corcho |
| 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: |
|---|---|
| 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. |
| Solution description | C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R only C3; C2 disjointWith C3
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. C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or C3); C2 disjointWith C3 |
| Elements | |
| Implementation | |
| Reusable component | |
| Component type |
| Problem example | Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only Sea_Waters; Transitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only River_Mouths; River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters
see Aguas_de_Transicion concept in hydrontology. |
|---|---|
| Pattern solution example | http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/ |
| Consequences | Transtitional_Waters subClassOf is_nearby only (Sea_Waters or River_Mouths); River_Mouths disjointWith Sea_Waters |
| Origin | |
|---|---|
| Known use | |
| Reference | |
| Related ODP | |
| Used in combination with | |
| Test |
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
This revision (revision ID 5343) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab
'Ontology Design Patterns'
