http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37033 <pre> I assume that you mean that isAnatomicalEntityOf is *intended* to be the inverse of hasAnatomicalEntity, but that the inverseProperty axiom hasn't been asserted anywhere. SWRL rules aren't logical assertions, they're operations, so to speak, and only operate on named individuals, so while the logical assertion "if y is an anatomical entity and x is an anatomical functional relation [though you didn't say 'relation' above] and x hasAnatomicalEntity y, then y isAnatomicalEntityOf x" might give you the behavior you want (though really you'd just want "if x hasAnatomicalEntity y, then y isAnatomicalEntityOf x" (i.e., without the domain and range specified)), it's not the same as the SWRL rule. You've already got an ontology where you can add the SWRL rule, and you're not worried about modifying that one. Why not just add the inverseProperty assertion there? You won't be modifying the imported ontologies by doing that. (This is one of the great things about OWL and semantic web data sources, you can define a new ontology Z that imports ontologies X and Y and make assertions *in Z* about the things defined in X and Y without modifying X and Y.) //JT </pre> Joshua TAYLOR 2012-05-24T20:57:54 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37032 <pre>Hi all, I am working in an ontology which relates concepts from two other ontologies defining this relations as restricted classes. What I want is to make the reasoner infer the implicit inverse object property. For example: I define my Class MyAmygdala to relate the imported class Amygdala with other imported class Function with restrictions "*hasAnatomicalEntity some Amygdala and hasCognitiveFunction Function*" So the DL Query *Anatomical_Functional and hasAnatomicalEntity some Amygdala* Returns MyAmygdala as expected. The property *hasAnatomicalEntity* has the inverse *isAnatomicalEntityOf*, but as far as I know there's no way to infer directly this relation so the query *'Anatomical entity' that isAnatomicalEntityOf some Anatomical_Functional* Returns Amygdala I should not alter the imported ontologies, so I decided to add a SWRL rule indicating that if a anatomical_functional has an anatomical entity the this entity is anatomical entity of this anatomical_functional: *'Anatomical entity'(?y), Anatomical_Functional_Relation(?x), hasAnatomicalEntity(?x, ?y) -&gt; isAnatomicalEntityOf(?y, ?x)* But the reasoner still doesn't infer this fact and the query returns nothing. Could anybody point me in the right direction? Thanks, Santi _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Santiago Timón 2012-05-24T15:49:42 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37031 <pre>Sepublica (http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org) Dear all, Robert Stevens will be our keynote speaker. The tittle of his talk will be "Semantic publishing: What does it all mean anyway?" Robert will open our afternoon session. From 2 to 5pm we will be discussing issues related to semantics in publications and semantic publications. You are all invited to attend our discussion, we are planning to generate a communique out of this session. SePublica 2012 … the scientific publication as an interface to the web of data… semantics in scientific publications, is it just about linking? what does a scientific publication in the semantic web look like what should it deliver, how should it change the user experience what do we want the next generation of scholarly communication to be like? </pre> Alexander Garcia Castro 2012-05-24T14:15:38 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37030 <pre>Dear Mr Timothy I solve my problem :-) Prefix :&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/CO.owl#&gt; PREFIX rdf: &lt;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#&gt; PREFIX owl: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#&gt; PREFIX xsd: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#&gt; PREFIX rdfs: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#&gt; SELECT ?People ?House WHERE { ?People :HouseCondition ?House FILTER (?House="BAD") . } and *not* FILTER (str(?House="BAD")) without str and () :-) Thank you, I am soo sorry Lina On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, jayadianti herlina &lt; herlinajayadianti&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> jayadianti herlina 2012-05-21T14:21:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37029 <pre>Hi Timothy, If this is intended behavior (and I understand the difference) then I certainly do not have any problem with this. Thanks for the explanation! In my case it is useful to see all inferred instances but that may be an isolated case. I liked the color code you use to distinguish between inferred and asserted instance memberships in the other interface. Maybe a third color + a filter option would be a possibility? In any case I'm very happy with Protégé as it is. It's a great tool. Florian _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Florian Grandel 2012-05-21T14:19:23 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37028 <pre> This could certainly be a lot clearer in the Protege interface and perhaps a level of user control would be useful. The difference between the two views is that one view is showing the direct inferred instances and the other is showing all the inferred instances. The direct inferred instances are those individuals that are known to be in a class but not any of the named subclasses. My feeling was that users would generally want to see the direct instances. After all when Protege displays the inferred superclasses of CyclicGroup it does not show Group as a super class. That is Protege only displays the direct superclasses. But there have been people who would prefer to see all the inferred instances. Given that there is no visual indication that the two cases are different, this is something of an inconsistency in the Protege interface. The obvious fix would be to modify the inferred members list to include all inferred members. -Timothy On 05/20/2012 04:07 PM, Florian Grandel wrote: _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Timothy Redmond 2012-05-21T14:04:37 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37027 <pre>Dear Mr Timothy and all Finally I can solve the problem of "inconsistency" in my ontologies. Thank you very much for your help. My next question is about SPARQL in protege 4.2 beta. I was using DL query, and it is easier to understand than SPARQL syntax and always supported OWl entailment :-) but I also want to use SPARQl syntax. Example 1 I use DL query : People and (hasSalary some int [&gt;=0]) and (hasSalary some int [&lt;=100]) and I also use Sparql syntax : Prefix :&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/CO.owl#&gt; PREFIX rdf: &lt;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#&gt; PREFIX owl: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#&gt; PREFIX xsd: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#&gt; PREFIX rdfs: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#&gt; SELECT ?People ?Salary WHERE { ?People :hasSalary ?Salary . FILTER (?Salary &gt;= 0 &amp;&amp; ?Salary &lt;= 70) } *and the result is equal (Figure 1)* --&gt; no problem in this example Example 2: then I try to making a query again DL : Person and hasConditionOfFloor value "BAD"^^string SPARQL : Prefix : &lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/UV1.owl#&gt; PREFIX rdf: &lt;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#&gt; PREFIX owl: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#&gt; PREFIX xsd: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#&gt; PREFIX rdfs: &lt;http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#&gt; SELECT ?Person ?Floor WHERE { ?Person :hasConditionOfFloor ?Floor. FILTER (str (?Floor="BAD")). } *and the result is not equal (Figure 2)* I think the FILTER that I made was wrong.. SPARQL can't filtering "BAD"..:-( "GOOD" also appear in result box Help me Mr Timothy Thank you Lina _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> jayadianti herlina 2012-05-21T13:28:48 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37025 <pre>Yeah sorry, I got interrupted half-way through replying and didn't check the thread later on. It's exactly what Timothy said. -- View this message in context: http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/Can-somebody-know-everything-tp4644375p4647958.html Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Daniel Isemann 2012-05-21T10:46:01 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37024 <pre>Hello all, I am reading through the Manchester Pizza Ontology Tutorial. After setting the 'domain' and 'range' for the 'hasTopping' property, I look at the 'isToppingOf' property, which is the inverse property of 'hasTopping'. The tutorial says Protege automatically fills in the 'domain' and 'range' of the 'isToppingOf' property, because the domain and range of its inverse property were specified. This doesn't happen in mine. How do I update the framework to make this happen? Thank you, _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Miri, Hossein 2012-05-21T07:59:46 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37023 <pre>Hi Protégé devs, I'm having trouble in displaying inferred individual memberships in Protégé 4.1 with both HermIT 1.3.6 and Fact++ as reasoners. I'm using a vanilla configuration (see below). The attached screenshots show that the inferred class membership of the individual "IntegralNumbersUnderAddition" is correctly shown in the classes tab but not in the individuals tab (see the empty members list of the "AbelianGroup" superclass). I'm also attaching the ontology that allows me to reproduce the problem. Can you give me a hint what I'm doing wrong or is this a bug? Florian Here's my configuration: Protege 4 OWL Editor (Version 4.1.0, Build = 239) Platform: Java: JVM 1.6.0_24-b24 Memory: 466M Language: en, Country: US Framework: Apache Software Foundation (1.5) OS: linux (3.2.0-24-generic) Processor: x86-64 Installed plugin The Protege 4 OWL Editor Installed plugin Dlquery Installed plugin The OWL API Installed plugin Owlviz Plug-in Installed plugin OntoGraf Plug-in Installed plugin HermiT Reasoner Installed plugin Factplusplus Plug-in Using OWL API version 3.2.3.1824 _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Florian Grandel 2012-05-20T23:07:10 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37022 <pre>Hi All, I was creating an ontology where in for each instance of pizza I have given a calori value. I have another class PERSON. What I am interested in doing protege is , if an instance of this person eats 2 different tyes of pizza, I would like to get the total calorie value consumed. Is it possible in protege 4.2. Pls help me.This is for my studies. Regards, MU _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Meena Unni 2012-05-19T21:40:38 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37021 <pre>Looks quit similar to the one, timothy suggested. Thx, Stephan On 05/18/2012 08:48 PM, Daniel Isemann wrote: _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Stephan Opfer 2012-05-19T06:57:28 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37020 <pre>Good point, OWL2 specification should definitely have a special individual "Chuck_Norris" who knows everything :-) olivier _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Olivier Dameron 2012-05-18T22:36:00 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37019 <pre>Hi Stephan, if inverse properties are ok in your ontology it would appear that the following does the trick: Declaration(Class(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#Someclass&gt;)) EquivalentClasses(owl:Thing ObjectHasValue(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#isKnownBy&gt; &lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#Peter&gt;)) Declaration(ObjectProperty(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#isKnownBy&gt;)) InverseObjectProperties(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#isKnownBy&gt; &lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#knows&gt;) Declaration(ObjectProperty(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#knows&gt;)) InverseObjectProperties(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#isKnownBy&gt; &lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#knows&gt;) Declaration(NamedIndividual(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#Peter&gt;)) Declaration(NamedIndividual(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#SomeObscureThing&gt;)) ClassAssertion(&lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#Someclass&gt; &lt;http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/2012/4/Ontology1337342410657.owl#SomeObscureThing&gt;)) Peter knows the "obscure thing" by virtue of knowing everything. Is that what you meant? Daniel -- View this message in context: http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/Can-somebody-know-everything-tp4644375p4644927.html Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Daniel Isemann 2012-05-18T18:48:39 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37018 <pre>Ah, good point. I always forget about this inverse () operator. Thank you! Stephan On 05/18/2012 02:43 PM, Timothy Redmond wrote: _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Stephan Opfer 2012-05-18T15:17:44 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37016 <pre>Hi, I have a question about the expressiveness of OWL2. Is it possible to state that an individual (e.g. peter) can know everything (the individuals of the class Thing): Person(peter) and peter knows "all Individuals of Thing"? In SWRL it would be: Thing(?x) -&gt; knows(peter, ?x) But I am not sure, if it is possible to use peter in such a way in an SWRL rule. Best Regards, Stephan -- View this message in context: http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/Can-somebody-know-everything-tp4644375.html Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Stephan Opfer 2012-05-18T11:31:38 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37015 <pre>Dne 18.5.2012 10:26, Stephan Opfer napsal(a): Sorry, you have not included the first post in the second post, and I had not remembered what you have sent earlier. The W3C Note at http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ is the best document on n-ary relations in OWL that I know of. My mistake, please replace "no-tree" with "tree-like" :-) In OWL without SWRL, you cannot describe non-tree structures, for example the concept of "child of parents who are married to each other" or "person who have their brother as their boss", to cite examples which I have seen. You can only describe "person who has a brother and a boss", but you cannot describe the relationship between the value of the brother and the value of the boss properties. In short, you have to use SWRL for your case. Best regards Martin </pre> Martin Kuba 2012-05-18T08:55:40 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37014 <pre>Hi Martin, funny page (http://lmgtfy.com/), but the first result of your link shows up the page I already linked in the first post. ;-) The paper, you posted, has no proof in section 4.1. Only some nice advice or hints about several restrictions. What do you mean, saying that "OWL without SWRL can describe only no-tree structures". The cited paper states that OWL is somehow restricted to tree-like structures, although there are some exceptions mentioned in the footnotes. Best Regards, Stephan On 05/18/2012 08:34 AM, Martin Kuba wrote: _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Stephan Opfer 2012-05-18T08:26:59 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37013 <pre> ==================================================================================== 2nd International Conference on Green Communications and Networking - GreeNets 2012 24th and 26th October 2012 Gandia, Spain http://greenets.org/ ==================================================================================== HIGHLIGHTS - The event is endorsed by the European Alliance for Innovation (www.eai.eu), a leading community-based organisation devoted to the advancement of innovation in the field of ICT - All accepted papers will be published by Springer and made available through SpringerLink Digital Library, one of the world's largest scientific libraries - Proceedings will be submitted for indexing by Google Scholar, ISI, EI Compendex, Scopus and many more - Best papers will be selected to be included in one of the special issues that will be published in: Future Internet, Network Protocols and Algorithms, Recent Patent in Te lecommunications CALL FOR PAPERS [Scope] Global warming and climate change have been a growing worldwide concern. Six sources, i.e., transportation, power, buildings, industry, agriculture and forestry, and land use, have been identified as major contributors to the rise of global carbon dioxide (CO2). The mobile industry is seen as a potential enabler to reduce greenhouse gases contributed by these six sources provided that appropriate measures are implemented. On the other hand, the mobile industry itself will also contribute to CO2 emission through network operations, mobile equipments, etc. To meet the requirement of low-carbon economy development, it is necessary to reduce the operation expenditure or energy consumption of mobile networks, while maintaining acceptable quality of service. This conference will explore and expl ain the scope and challenges of designing, building, and deploying GreeNets. In this regard, the conference aims to establish a forum to bring together research professionals from diverse fields including green mobile networks, system architectures, networking &amp; communication protocols, applications, test-bed and prototype, traffic balance and energy-efficient cooperation transmission, system and application issues related to GreeNets. [Topics] The conference invites original technical papers that were not previously published and are not currently under review for publication elsewhere. Topics include, but are not limited to: - Communications and Networking: Communication techniques and protocols for GreeNets Energy-efficient transmission technologies based on the cooperation communication Scalable and flexible energy efficiency mobile network architectures, deployments, and applications - Energy-efficient network architecture &amp; protocols: Scalability and mobility issues in energy efficiency cross-layer design MAC Protocols and QoS Designing for mobile networks - Systems and Technology: Transactions and workflows in green mobile networks Adaptability and stability o f green mobile networks Mobile and multimedia supported green mobile networks Experimental and test bed studies for energy efficiency mobile networks, simulation tools - Energy-efficient management: Energy-efficient traffic balance, cooperation and management Distributed energy efficiency resource management techniques Protocols for cooperative management and control [Publications] Accepted papers will be published in Springer's LNICST series and will appear in the SpringerLink, one of the largest digital libraries online that covers a variety of scientific disciplines, as well as in the ICST's own EU Digital Library (EUDL). LNICST volumes are submitted for inclusion to leading indexing services, including DBLP, Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, ISI Proceedings, EI Engineering Index, CrossRef, Scopus. [Special Issues] Best papers will be selected to be included in one of the special issues that will be published in: Future Internet (ISSN 1999-5903) Network Protocols and Algorithms (ISSN 1 943-3581) Recent Patent in Telecommunications (ISSN: 2211-7407 (Print) ISSN: 2211-7415 (Online)) [Paper submission] All the papers formatted according with the instructions have to be submitted through the conference online system at: http://greenets.org/submission.shtml [Important dates] Abstract Submission Deadline: June 10, 2012 Full Paper Deadline: June 10, 2012 Notification of Acceptance: July 6, 2012 Camera-ready: August 11, 2012 Conference dates: 24th - 26th October 2012 [Conference organizing committees] General Co-Chairs: Jaime Lloret, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain Joel Rodrigues, Institute of Telecommunications, University of Beira Interior, Portugal TPC Co-Chairs: Liang Zhou, Nanjing University of Posts and Telcommunications, China Eduardo Nakamura, Federal Univ. of Amazonas, Brazil Industry Track Chair: Jose Maria Alcaraz Calero, Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK Workshop Chair: Javier Aguiar, University of Valladolid, Spain Special Session Chair: Jose Soler, Da nmarks Tekniske Universitet, Denmark Panel Chair: A.v. Senthil Kumar, HINDUSTHAN College of Arts &amp; Science, India Posters Chair: Kayhan Zrar Ghafoor, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia Local Co-Chairs: Diana Bri, Universidad Politecncia de Valencia, Spain Miguel Garcia, Universidad Politecncia de Valencia, Spain Publicity Chairs: Sandra Sendra, Univ. Politecnica de Valencia, Spain Min Chen, Seoul National University, Korea Web Chair: Alejandro Canovas, Universidad Politecncia de Valencia, Spain Steering Committee: Athanasios Vasilakos, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Greece Imrich Chlamtac, Creat-Net, Italy ABOUT EAI The European Alliance for Innovation is a dynamic eco-system for fostering ICT enabled innovation to improve European competitiveness and to benefit society. EAI uses open e-platforms to inspire grassroots collaboration among all relevant actors, from organizations to individuals, to stimulate community driven innovation to its institutional and individual members worldwide. Through EAI, organizations find ideas and talent, and individual innovators find organizations for their ingenuity and craft. Join the innovation community at www.eai.eu UNSUBSCRIBE If you believed you have received this email in error, or do not want to receive emails from us in the future, please send an email to unsubscribe&lt; at &gt;eai.eu. _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Sandra Sendra 2012-05-18T07:35:22 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37012 <pre>Dne 17.5.2012 20:49, Stephan Opfer napsal(a): Hi Stephan, n-ary relations in OWL: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=n-ary+relations+owl As for relations between parameters without SWRL rules, it has been proven that OWL without SWRL can describe only no-tree structures, see [1] part 4.1 Expressive Restrictions. [1] Benjamin N. Grosof, Ian Horrocks, Raphael Volz, and Stefan Decker. Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’03, pages 48–57, New York, NY, USA, 2003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/775152.775160 Best regards Martin </pre> Martin Kuba 2012-05-18T06:34:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl/37011 <pre>Hi, I think that it is possible to achieve it with the help of SWRL rules, but it would be nice, if it is also possible without SWRL rules. Any suggestions? Best Regards, Stephan -- View this message in context: http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/N-Ary-Relations-and-Relations-between-their-Parameters-tp4641285p4643416.html Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl&lt; at &gt;lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 </pre> Stephan Opfer 2012-05-17T18:49:00 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.owl