在语义网中，OWL EL，RL，QL是否都是DL的实例?有什么区别?里面更多 [英] In Semantic Web, are OWL EL, RL, QL all instances of DL? What is the difference? More inside

问题描述

我在许多本体上使用了颗粒推理程序，并在IRI列表(在本例中为URL)上运行了info方法.我感兴趣的两个指标是DL Expressivity和OWL Profile.

I'm using the pellet reasoner on a number of ontologies and have run the info method on a list of IRIs (in this case URLs). The two metrics that interest me are the DL Expressivity and OWL Profile.

我正在获取的OWL个人资料的范围为"OWL 2"，"OWL 2 DL"，"OWL 2 EL"，"OWL 2 QL"，"OWL 2 RL".什么时候说"OWL 2"，是否意味着本体已填充OWL 2?所有其他变体是否都是DL?我发现了一个描述不同配置文件的规范(特别是表10)[作为新用户，我不能发布多个超链接；认为即将到来的一个在两个中比较重要)，但到目前为止，我还无法自己回答这个问题.

The OWL Profiles I'm getting range from "OWL 2," "OWL 2 DL," "OWL 2 EL," "OWL 2 QL," "OWL 2 RL." When is says "OWL 2," does that mean the ontology is OWL 2 full? Are all the other variations DL? I have found a spec describing the different profiles (table 10 especially) [as a new user I can't post more than one hyperlink; thought the upcoming one was more important of two], but so far I haven't been able to answer this question for myself.

至于"DL Expressivity"，其名称暗示所有Expressivity码(例如ALCH，ALCH(D))都是DL.我发现这本非常学术的目录以及它们在复杂性方面的技术含义，但我需要至少在一般情况下知道如何通过查看表达能力来判断一个本体是DL还是Full.任何帮助或解释这些事情的链接将不胜感激.

As for the "DL Expressivity," the very name implies that all the Expressivity codes (Such as ALCH, ALCH(D)) are DL. I have found this highly academic catalogue, so to speak, of the codes and their technical meaning in terms of complexity, but I need to know how to tell, at least generally, whether an ontology is DL or Full by looking at the Expressivities. Any help or links explaining these things would be most appreciated.

如果有帮助，我还应该提供一些有关此内容的背景信息.我只是根据"pellet info"数据构建一个表，该表具有本体ID号(来自url列表)，每个本体的表达性和OWL配置文件，并说明该本体是完整的，DL还是Lite. /p>

If it helps, I should also give some context for what I'm trying to do with this stuff. I'm just building a table from the "pellet info" data that has the ontology ID number (from the url list), the expressivity and OWL Profile for each, and also says whether that ontology is full, DL, or Lite.

推荐答案

如果本体告诉您的是什么(本体?)，则"OWL2"表示本来可以声明其中一个配置文件(例如EL，QL或RL)的"OWL2"，那么也许它所报告的本体包括位于每个配置文件的表达能力之外的结构，但它们又包含在OWL2规范中.

If whatever is telling you (Pellet?) than an ontology is "OWL2" when it could otherwise state one of the profiles such as EL, QL or RL, then perhaps the ontology it is reporting about includes constructs that sit outside the expressivity of each of the profiles, but is otherwise included in the OWL2 specification.

据我了解，每个配置文件都基于针对不同目的的不同描述逻辑(DL):

As I understand it, each of the profiles are based on different description logics (DLs) that are geared towards different purposes:

• > OWL2(DL) > 基于描述逻辑 OWL2-EL 是基于适用于 EL ++ 朝着TBox中的可伸缩推理(即，用于大多数推理任务(例如分类)的多项式时间推理).
• OWL2-QL 是基于在 DL-Lite 上，它适用于ABox中的可扩展查询应答(处理时大量实例数据和相对简单的TBox).
• OWL2-RL 是基于在具有表现力的描述逻辑程序(DLP)上是OWL2 DL(可以使用逻辑程序处理的片段)的子集.

• OWL2 (DL) is based on the description logic SROIQ, and is geared towards ontologies with a high degree of expressivity in the language. Reasoning tasks can be relatively expensive in this language.
• OWL2-EL is based on EL++, which is geared towards scalable reasoning in the TBox (i.e., polynomial-time reasoning for most inference tasks such as classification).
• OWL2-QL is based on DL-Lite, which is geared towards scalable query answering in the ABox (when dealing with lots of instance data and a relatively simple TBox).
• OWL2-RL is based on Description Logic Programs (DLP), which has an expressivity that subsets that of OWL2 DL (the fragment that can be handled using logic programs).

据我所知，目录 ve链接是最新的，但是如果您不熟悉逻辑并且可以识别每种语言涵盖的构造，则很难使用. W3C OWL2配置文件页总结了OWL语法中每个配置文件的语言表达能力.您可能可以参考此文件来确定每个OWL2语言配置文件的相交表达方式，而不必解释它们的语义(就DL而言，除非您对描述逻辑感到满意，否则很难理解，对于OWL2 -RL，描述逻辑程序).

As far as I can tell, the catalogue you've linked to is up-to-date, but is a bit hard to use if you aren't familiar with logics and can identify the constructs covered by each language. The W3C OWL2 profiles page summarises the language expressivity of each of the profiles in OWL syntax. You could possibly refer to this to determine the intersecting expressivity of each of the OWL2 language profiles without having to interpret their semantics (in terms of DLs, which is hard to grasp unless you're comfortable with description logics, and in the case of OWL2-RL, description logic programs).

最后，请注意，Full，DL和Lite的OWL1配置文件"分别对应于其他描述逻辑:

Lastly, note that the OWL1 'profiles' of Full, DL and Lite each correspond to yet other description logics:

• OWL1 DL 对应于描述逻辑 SHOIN .
• OWL1 Lite 对应于描述逻辑 SHIF .
• OWL1 Full 对应于一个不确定的逻辑，该逻辑至少会超集SHOIN(尽管我不确定这到底是什么！:-)

• OWL1 DL corresponds to the description logic SHOIN.
• OWL1 Lite corresponds to the description logic SHIF.
• OWL1 Full corresponds to an undecidable logic that at least supersets SHOIN (though, I'm not quite sure what this is exactly! :-)

这篇关于在语义网中，OWL EL，RL，QL是否都是DL的实例?有什么区别?里面更多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！