# Property:LogicalODPDescription

### From Odp

This is a property of type Text.

## Pages using the property "LogicalODPDescription"

Showing 14 pages using this property.

## A | |
---|---|

Adrian Walker 2 + | Please see www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf |

## C | |

Change of Time Varying Entities + | The solution is based on the 4D Fluents On … The solution is based on the 4D Fluents Ontology [2], as reinterpreted by Krieger [1]. [1] Krieger, H.U.: Where temporal description logics fail: Representing temporally changing relationships. In: Annual Conference on Arti�cial Intelligence. pp. 249-257. Springer (2008) [2] Welty, C., Fikes, R., Makarios, S.: A reusable ontology for Fuents in owl. In: Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS). vol. 150, pp. 226-236 (2006) stems (FOIS). vol. 150, pp. 226-236 (2006) |

Context Slices + | As shown in the example, the idea of the c … As shown in the example, the idea of the context slices pattern is, rather than reifying the statement itself, to create a projection of the ''relation arguments'' in each context for which some binary relation holds between them. Take for example the statement "Chris believes Sam is CEO of IBM". Say we already have nodes in some graph representing Sam and IBM. We create, as shown in the diagram, the context c1 corresponding to Chris' belief, and two nodes representing Chris' belief about Sam and Chris' belief about IBM (shown as Sam@c1 and IBM@c1). This allows us to represent ceoOf as a binary relation, which seems more natural, and it allows us to use the expressivity of OWL in more ways. We can say of the ceoOf relation that it has an inverse, hasCeo. We can express cardinality, e.g. a company may have only one CEO within a context. We can say that a relation is transitive or symmetric. We can express relation taxonomies in the usual way. While clearly OWL does not support RDF reification, and so none of this is possible if statement reification is used, as mentioned above a more standard way of representing this kind of information (including time, belief, knowledge, etc.) is to create an OWL class that represents the relation holding, with properties for the arguments. This approach makes it possible to express global but not local range and domain constraints, global but not local cardinality, and symmetry. Note that the ContextualProjection class should be considered disjoint with any of the classes in an ontology that have projections. sses in an ontology that have projections. |

## D | |

Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption + | The pattern resolves a disjointness incons … The pattern resolves a disjointness inconsistency –due to a subsumption–by defining a Hybrid Class based on the definition of disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency; and redistributing correctly sub-class relations between the sub-class, the hybrid class, and the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes implicated. The definition of the Hybrid Class is the union (OR) of the definitions of the disjoint classes. The application of the solution can be described by the following process (see diagram in attached file): 1.The pattern defines a Hybrid Class as a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency to be resolved; 2.The pattern defines a subsumption between the most specific common super-class of the disjoint classes implicated in the inconsistency, and the Hybrid Class created; 3.The pattern defines a subsumption between the Hybrid Class and the sub-class involved in the inconsistency. Consequences: The application of the pattern resolves the disjointness inconsistency (even if the involved sub-class is instantiated by individuals) and preserves existing knowledge. As a Logical OP, this pattern is independent from a specific domain of interest. However, it depends on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation of the ontology. Therefore, the language of the targeted ontology should allow expressing class union. ology should allow expressing class union. |

DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) + | C1 isEquivalentTo not C2 should be replace by C1 disjointWith C2 |

## E | |

Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption + | The pattern resolves a disjointness incons … The pattern resolves a disjointness inconsistency –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency, based on the definition of the involved disjoint classes. The definition of the sub-class is enlarged by the union (OR) of the definitions of the disjoint classes. The application of the solution can be described by the following process (see diagram in attached file): 1) The pattern enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency to be resolved. olved in the inconsistency to be resolved. |

## I | |

Summarization of an inverse n-ary relation + | The class "NAryRelationClass" is the class … The class "NAryRelationClass" is the class created to support the n-ary relationship (like in http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/#useCase1) and its further relations or attributes. The relationship "mainRelationship" and its inverse relation have been created to short-circuited the relation between the distinguished participants in the n-ary relationship. ed participants in the n-ary relationship. |

## N | |

N-Ary Relation Pattern (OWL 2) + | The N-Ary relation is reified by creating … The N-Ary relation is reified by creating a class for the relation (NR), and creating properties and classes for the domain (D) and ranges (R1-Rn) of the relation (that is, if the relation is directional). The NR class is specified using a local reflexivity restriction of the form: NR equiv is_NR some Self. We then specify role chains for each of the binary relations between the domain and ranges. For instance: has_NR o is_NR o r1 -> has_r1 instance: has_NR o is_NR o r1 -> has_r1 |

NegativePropertyAssertions + | NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(prop i1 i2 … 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) )'' ObjectSomeValuesFrom( p ObjectOneOf(b) )'' |

## O | |

OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) + | C1 subClassOf R only C2; C1 subClassOf R o … 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 other alternative solutions could be: 1) suppress the disjointness axiom. 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; 3) create C4 such as C4 isEqualTo C2 or C3; C1 subClassOf R only C4; C2 disjointWith C3. 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. subClassOf R3 only C3; C2 disjointWith C3. |

## P | |

Partition + | Let ''P'' be a named concept that is the p … 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. W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 June 2009. |

## S | |

Stub Metapattern + | The solution is a metapattern. That is, it … The solution is a metapattern. That is, it uses one "variable" class and two "variable" properties. The intention here is that when one wishes to use this metapattern, (s)he needs to instantiate the "variable" class and properties into actual class and properties. See Example section for a more concrete example. ample section for a more concrete example. |

Symmetric n-ary relationship + | A class to represent the n-ary relationshi … A class to represent the n-ary relationship together with the value for the further needed argument (Relationship or Attribute) has been created. A relationship between the abovementioned class and the classes involved in the symmetric n-ary relationship is created. e symmetric n-ary relationship is created. |

SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE) + | C1 isEquivalentTo C2 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 |