Przemek and William, (01)
OWL is a restricted subset of logic, and Protege is a tool.
Neither one is useful for this problem. (02)
PJ
> How can I make it to have PositiveVoteResult set properly? (03)
My recommendation is to use a more general logic. (04)
In first-order logic, you can define monadic predicates in any
way you please, and whatever definitions you choose will imply
a partial ordering. (05)
WF
> What is the benefit to be had of using subtyping for this purpose? (06)
There is no benefit. But if you choose OWL, the basic way to define
monadic predicates is to specify OWL classes. If you want to reason
about problems you can't express in OWL, then use a more general logic. (07)
WF
> It appears to me, from the Wine tutorial, that it does encourage this.
> I just don't understand what you can do by having positive votes and
> negative votes be different types of things, rather than the same type
> of thing with a different attribute value. (08)
The Wine tutorial is designed to illustrate what can be done with OWL. (09)
If you want a reasoning system that is (a) efficient and (b) capable
of solving problems that can't be expressed in OWL, then choose some
logic-programming system. (010)
Prolog is the oldest system of logic programming, and it is still one
of the most efficient. People who need better performance than the
usual OWL implementations, map OWL to Prolog (or other LP systems). (011)
That gives them more expressive power and far better performance
than any native OWL implementation. (012)
John (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (014)
|