Submissions:Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption
From Odp
(WOP'09) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
ID(s) of the classes defining the enlargement. | ID(s) of the classes defining the enlargement. | ||
Operator : Union | Operator : Union | ||
| - | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Logical OP Example Template | {{Logical OP Example Template | ||
| Line 31: | Line 30: | ||
{Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora, Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora, Carnivorous-Plant ⊑Plant, Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)} | {Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora, Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora, Carnivorous-Plant ⊑Plant, Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)} | ||
| - | If we apply a change to the ontology defining Carnivorous-Plant class as a sub-class of class Animal we cause a disjointness inconsistency as the class Carnivorous-Plant and the class Animal are disjointed. The proposed pattern propose a resolution alternative to this kind of inconsistency | + | If we apply a change to the ontology defining Carnivorous-Plant class as a sub-class of class Animal we cause a disjointness inconsistency as the class Carnivorous-Plant and the class Animal are disjointed. The proposed pattern propose a resolution alternative to this kind of inconsistency |
|Consequences=Enlarge the definition of the class Carnivorous-Plant based on the definition of the classes Animal and Plant. | |Consequences=Enlarge the definition of the class Carnivorous-Plant based on the definition of the classes Animal and Plant. | ||
1) The pattern enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency Carnivorous-Plant by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency: the classes Animal and Plant. | 1) The pattern enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency Carnivorous-Plant by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency: the classes Animal and Plant. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
{{Scenarios about me}} | {{Scenarios about me}} | ||
{{Reviews about me}} | {{Reviews about me}} | ||
| + | {{Submission to event | ||
| + | |Event=WOP2009:Main | ||
| + | }} | ||
Revision as of 18:16, 21 August 2009
| If you are a member of quality committee please visit the
If you are author of this proposal or you want to contribute to this pattern's review, you can: specify if this revision takes in account any of the review(s) add a new scenario for Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption In general, it could be useful to visit the evaluation section to have information about the evaluation process of this proposal Current revision ID: 5581 |
General information
| Name | Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption. |
|---|---|
| Also known as | |
| Author(s) | Rim DJEDIDI |
| SubmittedBy | RimDjedidi |
Description
| Motivation | Problem:
Resolve disjointness –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging a class definition. Competency Question: How to resolve disjointness –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging a definition of a class? |
|---|---|
| Aim | The logical pattern models an alternative resolving disjointness inconsistency –caused by a subsumption– by enlarging the definition of a class. |
| Solution description | 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 disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency.
Process: 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. |
| Elements | the following elements are manipulated y the pattern:
ID of the class to enlarge (classID). ID(s) of the classes defining the enlargement. Operator : Union |
| Implementation | |
| Reusable component | |
| Component type |
Example
| Problem example | Let’s consider the OWL ontology O defined by the following axioms:
{Animal ⊑Fauna-Flora, Plant ⊑Fauna-Flora, Carnivorous-Plant ⊑Plant, Plant ⊑ Not(Animal)} If we apply a change to the ontology defining Carnivorous-Plant class as a sub-class of class Animal we cause a disjointness inconsistency as the class Carnivorous-Plant and the class Animal are disjointed. The proposed pattern propose a resolution alternative to this kind of inconsistency |
|---|---|
| Pattern solution example | |
| Consequences | Enlarge the definition of the class Carnivorous-Plant based on the definition of the classes Animal and Plant.
1) The pattern enlarges the definition of the sub-class object of the disjointness inconsistency Carnivorous-Plant by defining –in its description– a union of the definitions of the disjoint classes involved in the inconsistency: the classes Animal and Plant. |
Pattern reference
| Origin | |
|---|---|
| Known use | |
| Reference | |
| Related ODP | |
| Used in combination with | |
| Test |
Scenarios
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
Reviews
| Review article | Posted on | About revision (current is 5581) |
|---|---|---|
| MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption | 24550838 September 2009 | 56245,624 |
| MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption 2 | 24550838 September 2009 | 57315,731 |
| WimPeters about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption | 24550849 September 2009 | 57315,731 |
| FrancoisScharffe about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption | 245508611 September 2009 | 58005,800 |
This revision (revision ID 5581) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab
| Submission to event |
|---|
