| Can any tell me how to add the plugin obotoowl to protege 4 |
_______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Dear Thomas,
You should not use subclassOf for anything other than subclass of. In particular, you should not use it for geographic containment. Instead, you should use a property which will define a different type of hierarchy: A containment hierarchy rather than a subclass-of hierarchy.
On Jan 29, 2011, at 2:16 AM, shreyes shiv wrote:Dear all,
I have a sector (large area of land which contain several blocks) which is top most class.
block( big area of land which contains several plots). so should i make block the subclass and plot the sub subclass in the hierarchy or just write using a property and state them as normal classes without any hierarchy?
The reason for that is that the subclassOf property has defined semantics that are used by OWL reasoners to make inferences. And if you assert subclassOf when it doesn't really apply, you will (potentially) get inferences that you don't want. In particular, the reasoner will infer that every block individual is also a sector individual. You don't want that to happen, so you can't use subclassOf.Yes. You can apply properties to different types of objects.
how can use the same property twice?
for example if i am writing sector contains block (inverse would be block is a part_of sector)
block contain plots(inverse would be plot is a part_of block)
If you use domains on your properties, then you do need to be careful that you set up the domain of the property correctly. In particular you want to make sure that you use a domain of (Sector union Plot) [Sector or Plot] and not (Sector intersection Plot) [Sector and Plot]. Otherwise you will again get incorrect inferences, since "Sector and Plot" would mean anything that uses the property must be both a Sector and a Plot.
_______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Hi Thomas, Thanks for responding. Thomas Russ wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2011, at 11:13 AM, William Fitzgerald wrote: > >> Dear Experts, >> >> Is there any examples for which the SWRL makeOWLClass built-in is >> demonstrated? >> >> I am unclear as to how I can use the built-in. >> >> For example, I presumed if I wanted to create a class called >> "SomeClass" I could use the following >> in a SWRL rule swrlx:makeOWLClass(SomeClass) >> >> This of course leads to an error. >> >> What is the correct way to do this? >> >> If one was to consider the makeOWLIndividual it becomes clear why the >> following SWRL rule should work: >> >> Person(?person) ^ hasSSN(?person, ?ssn) ^ >> swrlx:makeOWLIndividual(?patient, ?person) -> >> Patient(?patient) ^ hasPID(?patient, ?ssn) > > It is not at all clear to my why you are even trying to create a > separate individual here. Why are you not just trying to make the > assertions about ?person, adding the Person class and hasPID property to > the original individual? The above SWRL fragment is from the SWRLtab page. http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SWRLExtensionsBuiltIns >Do you really want to have separate individuals? That aside, there maybe scenarios whereby one would like to create new individuals. For example, one may wish to build upon a predefined knowledge base of template individuals. Consider a best practice firewall rule that states traffic to the web server should be to port 80 only. Depending on which network domain the web server resides, the servers IP address is unknown. Thus, one could then create a specific firewall rule individual based upon a best practice requirement (template) firewall rule individual and the web server's IP address as it becomes known. Note, the same template firewall rule could be applied to any number of web servers in a web farm across multiple network domains. The following is another simplistic example, of a threat-based approach to firewall rule synthesis. As knowledge about assets, threats and vulnerabilities become known, it becomes possible to not only modify existing template firewall rules (that is, assert new property relations on those individuals), but also to consider automatic synthesis of firewall rules. The following *fragment* of a SWRL rule dynamically creates a set of firewall rules, using the swrlx:makeOWLIndividual built-in, that will protect assets from spoofing threats. New knowledge about an asset's IP address (hasIPAddress(?asset, ?aip)) and the IP address range in which the threat of spoofing (Threat(?spoof )) have been identified, are used to synthesise specific firewall rules (?specific). Asset(?asset) ^ Threat(?spoof ) ^ Vulnerability(?ipPktForgery) ^ TemplateFirewallRule(fwrtemp ) ^ hasWeakness(?asset, ?ipPktForgery) ^ exploits(?spoof, ?ipPktForgery) ^ mitigates(fwrtemp , ?ipPktForgery) ^ hasIPAddress(?asset, ?aip) ^ hasSrcIPAddressStart(?spoof,?sip) ^ hasSrcIPAddressEnd(?spoof, ?eip) ^ swrlx:makeOWLIndividual(?specific, fwrtemp, ?spoof, ?asset, ?ipPktForgery) --> FirewallRule(?specific) ^ hasSrcIPAddressStart(?specific, ?sip) ? hasSrcIPAddressEnd(?specific, ?eip) ? hasDstIPAddress(?specific, ?aip) ? hasAction(?specific, drop) ? mitigates(?specific, ?ipPktForgery) > >> However, such a rule presumes that class Patient has already be >> created (and perhaps even had >> restrictions also associated with it). > > That hardly seems like an unwarranted assumption. It seems to me that > if you are writing a rule with the class in the consequent, that you > would already know what class you would like to assert. I know. My point is, there may be scenarios, for which you may not know of the existence of a class. Perhaps an OWL-DL fragment describing an individual is received from an external source for which you want to add to your ontology but currently have no class by with to make it a member. Consider, the following simplified scenario. Alice trusts Bob for all kinds of threats. (Both Alice and Bob have a class called Trust) Bob trusts Eve for all kinds of Threats and all kinds of Countermeasures. (Both Bob and Eve have a class called Trust and a class called Countermeasure) Alice may receive a *fragment* of an ontology from Eve that states individual te isMitigatedBy ce. Alice's ontology has a class called Threat, however it is currently unaware of class Countermeasure. Alice trusts Eves ontology fragment concerning individuals te and ce due to the delegation or trust relationship with Bob (a SWRL rule can explicitly infer Alice's relationship with Eve). Alice can add the individual te to its own local class Threat but what should Alice do with individual ce? In this example, an assumption can be made that the ontology fragment presented to Alice from Eve will state that individual ce is a member of a (named) class called Countermeasure within the Eve ontology. Therefore, I was hoping a SWRL rule could be written that then creates a class (for which we now have a name) within Alice's ontology called Countermeasure and assert ce as a member. What I am interested in is the use of (trusted) fragments of distributed ontologies that could be used to not only populate an ontology in terms of individuals (where the class structure is known) but also to construct classes/structure as new knowledge becomes known. > > And would you then need some 2nd order like construct to be able to use > the variable associated with the new class in some type of assertion. > Normally that would require some form of 2nd order construct, which SWRL > normally doesn't support. Unfortunately, I don't recall offhand if you > can assert the rdf:type property using SWRL. That would provide at > least some 2nd order rule capability, at least with respect to class > membership. > >> What I would like to do, is based on certain facts/assertions >> identified within a a SWRL rule, >> create a class (named class if possible) and perhaps have an >> individual assigned membership of that >> class. > > I'm having trouble seeing why you need to do this and what benefit it has. > > If you want a named class, why not create in the ontology in the first > place? An anonymous class could also suffice, for which a new named class could, in principal, be defined later that subsumes this class (a more human friendly named hierarchy). Nevertheless, it is possible to receive the named class from remote ontology and then create a new class in the local ontology based on that name. What I was trying to do is to see how far I could push the use of SWRL (a logic-only-based solution). I could of course take a algorithmic-based approach (if-then-else) using the OWL-API's rather than the Protege 3.4 GUI and state that on receiving an OWL-DL fragment for which I currently do not have a class for, then create a class for that name or perhaps copy that received OWL-DL class description into the local ontology. Regardless of the practicality or impracticality for which I want to explore, I still do not know the correct format for which to use the makeOWLClass builtin. I notice, for example, the use of some abox built-ins are often buggy [1]. Thus, I am unsure, if the various combinations of trying to get the makeOWLClass built-in to work within Protege 3.4 are incorrect because of how I am using the built-in or is it due to some internal bug/mis-configuration. [1] https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/2010-September/015223.html regards, Will. _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
1st International Workshop on Semantic Publication (SePublica 2011)
http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org
at the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2011)
http://www.eswc2011.org
May 29th or 30th, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece
Keynote by Steve Pettifer, Manchester University, UK.
“Utopia Documents and The Semantic Biochemical Journal experiment”
SUBMISSION DEADLINE February 28
BEST PAPER AWARD
ELSEVIER BEST SEMANTIC PAPER AWARD
The Best Paper Award is presented to the author(s) deemed to have
written the paper covering the most innovative and feasible proposal
concerning semantic publishing in the workshop. All submissions to the
SePuBlica workshop will be considered, and a panel of experts will rate
the papers according to originality of the idea, feasibility and
presentation. The Best Paper award is sponsored by Elsevier as an
incentive for researchers working on defining the next generation of
scientific publishing concepts. The Best Paper Award will be handed out
at the end of the SePuBlica workshop.
As a cash prize, the Best Paper Award will receive: US$ 750
The runner-up will be awarded a prize of US$ 250.
SEPUBLICA
The MISSION of the SePublica workshop is to bring together researchers
and practitioners dealing with different aspects of Semantic
Technologies in the Publishing Industry. How is the Semantic Web
impacting the publishing industry? How is our experience of
publications changing because of Semantic Web technologies being
applied to the publishing industry?
The CHALLENGE of the Semantic Web is to allow the Web to move from a
dissemination platform to an interactive platform for networked
information. The Semantic Web promises to “fundamentally change our
experience of the Web”.
In spite of improvements in the distribution, accessibility and
retrieval of information, little has changed in the publishing
industry so far. The Web has succeeded as a dissemination platform for
scientific and non-scientific papers, news, and communication in
general; however, most of that information remains locked up in
discrete documents, which are poorly interconnected to one another and
to the Web.
The connectivity tissues provided by RDF technology and the Social Web
have barely made an impact on scientific communication nor on ebook
publishing, neither on the format of publications, nor on repositories
and digital libraries. The worst problem is in accessing and reusing
the computable data which the literature represents and describes.
• Consider research publications: Data sets and code are essential
elements of data intensive research, but these are absent when the
research is recorded and preserved in perpetuity by way of a scholarly
journal article.
• Or consider news reports: Governments increasingly make public
sector information available on the Web, and reporters use it, but
news reports very rarely contain fine-grained links to such data
sources.
QUESTIONS AND TOPICS OF INTEREST
• What does a network of truly interconnected papers look like?
How could interoperability across documents be enabled?
• How could concept-centric social networks emerge?
• Are blogs and wikis new means for scholarly communication?
• What lessons can be learned from humanities and social science publishers
(i.e. going beyond scientific publishing towards scholarly publishing)?
• How could we move beyond the PDF?
How can we embed and link semantics in EPUB and other e-book formats?
• How are digital libraries related to semantic e-science?
What is the relationship between a paper and its digital library?
• How could we realize a paper with an API?
How could we have a paper as a database, as a knowledge base?
• How is the paper an interface, gateway, to the web of data?
How could such and interface be delivered in a contextual manner?
• How could RDF(a) and ontologies be used to represent the knowledge encoded
in scientific documents and in general-interest media publications?
• What ontologies do we need for representing structural elements in a document?
• How can we capture the semantics of rhetorical structures in
scholarly communication, and of hypotheses and scientific evidence?
AUDIENCE
• researchers from diverse backgrounds such as argumentative
structures, scholarly communication, multi-modality in publications,
digital libraries, semantics in publications, and ontology
engineers.
• practitioners active in the publishing industry, repositories of
experimental information and document standards.
IMPORTANT DATES
Paper/Demo Submission Deadline: February 28, 23:59 Hawaii Time
Acceptance Notification: April 1
Camera Ready Version: April 15
SePublica Workshop: May 29 or May 30 (to be announced)
SUBMISSION AND PROCEEDINGS
Research papers are limited to 12 pages and position papers to 5
pages. For system descriptions, a 5 page paper should be
submitted. All papers and system descriptions should be formatted
according to the LNCS format
http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0
We encourage the submission of semantic documents. LaTeX documents in
the LNCS format can, e.g., be annotated using SALT
(http://salt.semanticauthoring.org) or sTeX
(http://trac.kwarc.info/sTeX/)
_______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
1st International Workshop on Semantic Publication (SePublica 2011)
http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org
at the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2011)
http://www.eswc2011.org
May 29th or 30th, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece
Keynote by Steve Pettifer, Manchester University, UK.
“Utopia Documents and The Semantic Biochemical Journal experiment”
SUBMISSION DEADLINE February 28
BEST PAPER AWARD
ELSEVIER BEST SEMANTIC PAPER AWARD
The Best Paper Award is presented to the author(s) deemed to have
written the paper covering the most innovative and feasible proposal
concerning semantic publishing in the workshop. All submissions to the
SePuBlica workshop will be considered, and a panel of experts will rate
the papers according to originality of the idea, feasibility and
presentation. The Best Paper award is sponsored by Elsevier as an
incentive for researchers working on defining the next generation of
scientific publishing concepts. The Best Paper Award will be handed out
at the end of the SePuBlica workshop.
As a cash prize, the Best Paper Award will receive: US$ 750
The runner-up will be awarded a prize of US$ 250.
SEPUBLICA
The MISSION of the SePublica workshop is to bring together researchers
and practitioners dealing with different aspects of Semantic
Technologies in the Publishing Industry. How is the Semantic Web
impacting the publishing industry? How is our experience of
publications changing because of Semantic Web technologies being
applied to the publishing industry?
The CHALLENGE of the Semantic Web is to allow the Web to move from a
dissemination platform to an interactive platform for networked
information. The Semantic Web promises to “fundamentally change our
experience of the Web”.
In spite of improvements in the distribution, accessibility and
retrieval of information, little has changed in the publishing
industry so far. The Web has succeeded as a dissemination platform for
scientific and non-scientific papers, news, and communication in
general; however, most of that information remains locked up in
discrete documents, which are poorly interconnected to one another and
to the Web.
The connectivity tissues provided by RDF technology and the Social Web
have barely made an impact on scientific communication nor on ebook
publishing, neither on the format of publications, nor on repositories
and digital libraries. The worst problem is in accessing and reusing
the computable data which the literature represents and describes.
• Consider research publications: Data sets and code are essential
elements of data intensive research, but these are absent when the
research is recorded and preserved in perpetuity by way of a scholarly
journal article.
• Or consider news reports: Governments increasingly make public
sector information available on the Web, and reporters use it, but
news reports very rarely contain fine-grained links to such data
sources.
QUESTIONS AND TOPICS OF INTEREST
• What does a network of truly interconnected papers look like?
How could interoperability across documents be enabled?
• How could concept-centric social networks emerge?
• Are blogs and wikis new means for scholarly communication?
• What lessons can be learned from humanities and social science publishers
(i.e. going beyond scientific publishing towards scholarly publishing)?
• How could we move beyond the PDF?
How can we embed and link semantics in EPUB and other e-book formats?
• How are digital libraries related to semantic e-science?
What is the relationship between a paper and its digital library?
• How could we realize a paper with an API?
How could we have a paper as a database, as a knowledge base?
• How is the paper an interface, gateway, to the web of data?
How could such and interface be delivered in a contextual manner?
• How could RDF(a) and ontologies be used to represent the knowledge encoded
in scientific documents and in general-interest media publications?
• What ontologies do we need for representing structural elements in a document?
• How can we capture the semantics of rhetorical structures in
scholarly communication, and of hypotheses and scientific evidence?
AUDIENCE
• researchers from diverse backgrounds such as argumentative
structures, scholarly communication, multi-modality in publications,
digital libraries, semantics in publications, and ontology
engineers.
• practitioners active in the publishing industry, repositories of
experimental information and document standards.
IMPORTANT DATES
Paper/Demo Submission Deadline: February 28, 23:59 Hawaii Time
Acceptance Notification: April 1
Camera Ready Version: April 15
SePublica Workshop: May 29 or May 30 (to be announced)
SUBMISSION AND PROCEEDINGS
Research papers are limited to 12 pages and position papers to 5
pages. For system descriptions, a 5 page paper should be
submitted. All papers and system descriptions should be formatted
according to the LNCS format
http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-793341-0
We encourage the submission of semantic documents. LaTeX documents in
the LNCS format can, e.g., be annotated using SALT
(http://salt.semanticauthoring.org) or sTeX
(http://trac.kwarc.info/sTeX/)
_______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Hi All, Perhaps this is a nonsensical question, but, is it possible to define a SWRL rule that provides the ability for an individual (that upholds certain properties) to execute another SWRL rule? For example, given SWRL rule-1: Bla(?x) ^ Bla(y) ^ hasSomeBla(?x,?y) --> hasSomeOtherBla(?x,y) Is it possible to state only certain individuals may, or have permission, to execute rule-1 within the ontology? For example, SWRL rule-2 is defined as: SpecialIndividual(?i) ^ SomeSWRLRule(rule-1) --> canExecute(?i,rule-1) Just wondering out of curiosity if such reasoning is supported or possible at a SWRL level. regards, Will. _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Can any tell me how to add the plugin obotoowl to protege 4
_______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
I have to be quick with this question right now but there is a wiki page about this [1]. I have been told that this page needs a bit more work but it should help you see the approach. -Timothy [1] http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/PluginAnatomy#Adding_Menu_Plugins On 01/31/2011 08:28 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > I'm not working on my own machine right now so i have to use my webmail > provider which aparently fails to include some xml in text mails... fail... > so here again with a link to a pastebin: > >> this is kinda a newbie question but i was unable to find a plugin >> which did that already so... >> >> i try to add a new menu next to the file, edit and tools menu. from >> org.protege.editor.core.application/plugin.xml i got the idea of doing >> the following: > http://mister-muffin.de/p/J4Dk.txt > > i tried some variations of this to no avail. also: if i only have the first extension > entry in my plugin.xml i get the menu but of course it's empty. > > josch > _______________________________________________ > protege-owl mailing list > protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl > > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Hi all!
I would like to know if I can use Jena with Protégé 4.1.
Thanks in advance,
Fernando _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list protege-owl <at> lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
RSS Feed44 | |
|---|---|
58 | |
77 | |
46 | |
42 | |
41 | |
38 | |
81 | |
65 | |
69 | |
106 | |
110 | |
120 | |
141 | |
113 | |
183 | |
117 | |
161 | |
142 | |
199 | |
123 | |
150 | |
127 | |
233 | |
228 | |
160 | |
212 | |
223 | |
214 | |
154 | |
175 | |
173 | |
226 | |
147 | |
268 | |
287 | |
285 | |
249 | |
225 | |
276 | |
332 | |
220 | |
298 | |
218 | |
211 | |
201 | |
306 | |
344 | |
429 | |
431 | |
489 | |
340 | |
457 | |
176 | |
189 | |
368 | |
172 | |
160 | |
275 | |
381 | |
363 | |
472 | |
511 | |
391 | |
305 | |
488 | |
522 | |
374 | |
269 | |
321 | |
309 | |
352 | |
450 | |
353 | |
260 | |
199 | |
273 | |
204 | |
258 | |
263 | |
263 | |
321 | |
295 | |
360 | |
428 | |
435 | |
848 | |
828 | |
562 | |
392 | |
599 | |
434 | |
275 | |
476 | |
375 | |
581 | |
500 | |
543 | |
740 | |
626 | |
497 | |
454 | |
469 | |
690 | |
626 | |
594 | |
831 | |
758 | |
731 | |
980 | |
780 | |
688 | |
1 |
