owl:someValuesFrom vs. owl:minCardinalilty [英] owl:someValuesFrom vs. owl:minCardinalilty

问题描述

通常，当我们说我所有的孩子都是女性"时，我们打算暗示并且至少有一个".著名的比萨教程(V1.3)在第100页上解决了此问题，并指出，通常通用限制(owl:allValuesFrom)，没有存在限制(owl:someValuesFrom).

Usually when we say "all of my children are female" we intend to imply "and there's at least one of them". The famed pizza tutorial (V1.3) addresses this on page 100 saying that it's usually an error to have a universal restriction (owl:allValuesFrom) without an existential restriction (owl:someValuesFrom).

owl:someValuesFrom是一种反手说至少有一个"的方式.是否有任何逻辑，性能或美学上的理由不使用"owl:minCardinality"?

owl:someValuesFrom is sort of a back-handed way of saying "and there's at least one". Is there any logical, performance or aesthetic reason not to instead use "owl:minCardinality"?

推荐答案

owl:someValuesFrom是一种反手说的方式， 至少一个".是否存在任何逻辑，性能或美学原因 而不是使用"owl:minCardinality"?

owl:someValuesFrom is sort of a back-handed way of saying "and there's at least one". Is there any logical, performance or aesthetic reason not to instead use "owl:minCardinality"?

OWL是基于描述逻辑构建的，描述逻辑开发的重要方面之一是研究存在不同语言功能时推理算法的复杂性.例如，在描述逻辑复杂性导航器中查看看到不同描述逻辑的复杂性.

OWL is built on Description Logic, and one of the important aspects of the development of Description Logics has been examining the complexity of reasoning algorithms when different language features are present. Have a look, for instance, at the Description Logic Complexity Navigator where you see the complexity of different description logics.

与具有一般基数限制(例如minCardinality)的语言相比，具有someValuesFrom但没有minCardinality的语言可能更易于推理.当然，在OWL 2中，当您同时拥有两者时，您是正确的，我们确实具有等价∃. p.C≡ ≥1p.C.但是，在OWL 1中，存在合格的存在性限制，因此可以使用∃. p.C，但没有限定基数限制.也就是说，您可以说≥1p，但不能说≥1p.C.这意味着在OWL 1中，您可以说

Languages that have someValuesFrom but not minCardinality may be easier to reason in than those that have general cardinality restrictions (like minCardinality). Of course, you're right in observing that in OWL 2, where you have both, that we do have the equivalence ∃ p.C ≡ ≥1 p.C. In OWL 1, however, there were qualified existential restrictions, so you could use ∃ p.C, but no qualified cardinality restrictions. That is, you could say ≥1 p, but not ≥1 p.C. That means that in OWL 1, you can say

∃ hasChild.Female

∃ hasChild.Female

和

≥1hasChild

≥1 hasChild

但不是

≥1hasChild.Female

≥1 hasChild.Female

仅此一项可能就足以让它更喜欢∃了.当您需要说的是至少一个"时的版本；您将获得向后兼容性，这对于支持OWL 1而不是(所有)OWL 2的推理机来说可能非常重要.

That alone might be a good enough reason to prefer the ∃ version when all you need to say is "at least one"; you get backward compatibility, which may be very important for reasoners that support OWL 1, but not (all of) OWL 2.

这篇关于owl:someValuesFrom vs. owl:minCardinalilty的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！