Below you will find the currently proposed Logical ODPs (LPs).
New proposals of LPs are very welcome. Please post a new proposal if you want to contribute.
Proposed Logical ODPs
|Adrian Walker 2||Integrate the semantics of data, with a semantics of an inference method, and also with the meanings of open vocabulary, largely open syntax English sentences.||Adrian Walker|
|Context Slices||To encode that a binary relation holds in a context.||Chris Welty|
|Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption||Intent: The purpose of this pattern is to support the semantics of a subsumption defined under two disjoint classes and resolve the resulting inconsistency. Covered Requirements: The pattern solves a problem of disjointness inconsistency caused by a subsumption relation without deleting the disjointness axiom so that existing knowledge can be preserved.||RimDjedidi|
|DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)||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.||CatherineRoussey
|Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption||Intent: The purpose of this pattern is to support the semantics of a subsumption defined under two disjoint classes and resolve the resulting inconsistency. Covered Requirements: The pattern solves a problem of disjointness inconsistency caused by a subsumption relation without deleting the disjointness axiom so that existing knowledge can be preserved.||RimDjedidi|
|Summarization of an inverse n-ary relation||The aim of this pattern is to allow asking for n-ary relationships and their inverse relations between two distinguished participants without a complex query (Such a comples query would involve the class created to support the n-ary relation between the origin and destination classes of the n-ary relationship).||MariaPoveda
|N-Ary Relation Pattern (OWL 2)||The aim of this pattern is to allow the inference of property relations between the different relata of the original N-Ary relation based on its reification.||RinkeHoekstra|
|NegativePropertyAssertions||Expressing NPAs in ontologies prior to OWL 2 as well as given an transformation rule when using OWL 2.||OlafNoppens|
|Normalization||To untangle a polyhierarchy, coding the subsumption relationships using restrictions rather than class-subclass relationships. The application example for this ODP is adapted from the Cell Type Ontology. In the example, the subsumption relationships that already are in the Cell Type Ontology are inferred by the reasoner instead of hard-coded. The term Neutrophil is used as an example class to show how a class can relate to different modules.||BenedictoRodriguezCastro|
|OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)||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.||Catherine Roussey
|Partition||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.||OlafNoppens|
|Stub Metapattern||The aim of this metapattern is to act as a type of placeholder for future extensions of an ontology in cases where a more fine-grained modeling would currently be counterproductive, but future extensions may call for more details.||AdilaKrisnadhi|
|Symmetric n-ary relationship||This pattern allows representing symmetric n-ary relationships, i.e. binary relationships between two elements that need a further argument that has the same value for both directions of the relationship.
If SNAry is the symmetric n-ary relationship and z is its value for the elements x and y, then:SNAry(x,y)=z iff SNAry(y,x)=z
|SynonymOrEquivalence (SOE)||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.||Catherine Roussey