From: Deborah McGuinness (dlm@ksl.stanford.edu)
Date: 11/08/01
I am willing to collect such idioms. Please send me 1 - english of a statement you want to make 2 - a daml solution (if it is tricky, an english paraphrase first is useful). I have a start at such a collection since I wrote the "tricks of the trade" section of the "how and when to live with a kl-one-like language" [1] paper many moons ago. I generated that from working with users of classic and seeing how and when they were confused in their modeling tasks. That was for a mostly less expressive language than daml+oil (although interestingly enough would have happily been able to say the thing that jeff wanted to say since it did have same-as as a constructor). [1] http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/living-with-classic-abstract.html d Pat Hayes wrote: > You know, guys, it is expecting rather a lot of the DPH to be able to > figure out that the right way to say that foo is baz, is to invent a > disjunctive superproperty and then restrict it to have a cardinality > of one. I'm sure this kind of thing makes life easier for the DL > reasoners, but it isn't likely to get DAML widely used. > > Would it make sense to provide some suite of idioms that could be > used to say a bunch of 'normal' things that people might want to say? > That might be a way towards making a useable interface to DAML, for > one thing. > > Pat > > >On November 7, Jeff Heflin writes: > >> Ian, > >> > >> Thanks for the ingenious suggestion. However, wouldn't you also have to > >> express restrictions that the cardinality of bestFriend and spouse are > >> 1? Otherwise, people with a best friend but no spouse, or vice versa > >> would be included in the class you defined. > > > >Oops - you are right of course. > > > >Ian > > > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> Ian Horrocks wrote: > >> > > >> > On November 7, Jeff Heflin writes: > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > I recently had someone ask me if they could represent a particular kind > >> > > of knowledge in DAML+OIL, and I wasn't able to give them a definite > >> > > response. I was hoping one of our DL gurus could help. I was asked if it > >> > > was possible to define the class of all people who's best friend is > >> > > their spouse, where bestFriend and spouse are properties. I think this > >> > > means they would need a restriction that could restrict two properties > >> > > to have the same value. I don't believe we can do this in DAML+OIL, but > >> > > wanted to check. Thanks! > >> > > >> > As you rightly suspect, there isn't a general way to restrict two > >> > properties to have the same value. In cases like this, it may be > >> > possible to use the property hierarchy to achieve the desired result > >> > by declaring both bestFriend and spouse to be subProperties of a > >> > property called, say, bestFriendORspouse, and then asserting the class > >> > as equivalent to a maxCardinality restriction of 1 on > >> > bestFriendORspouse. > >> > > >> > Ian > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Jeff > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax > phayes@ai.uwf.edu > http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes -- Deborah L. McGuinness Knowledge Systems Laboratory Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 (computer fax) 801 705 0941
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST