在语义网中，OWL EL、RL、QL 都是 DL 的实例吗？有什么区别？更多内容
我在许多本体上使用颗粒推理器，并在 IRI 列表（在本例中为 URL）上运行 info 方法。我感兴趣的两个指标是 DL Expressivity 和 OWL Profile。
我得到的 OWL 配置文件范围包括“OWL 2”、“OWL 2 DL”、“OWL 2 EL”、“OWL 2 QL”、“OWL 2 RL”。当说“OWL 2”时，是否意味着本体是 OWL 2 完整的？其他的版本都是DL吗？我找到了一个描述不同配置文件的规范（尤其是表 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是两个中更重要的]，但到目前为止我还无法自己回答这个问题。
至于“DL Expressivity”，顾名思义，所有的 Expressivity 代码（例如 ALCH、ALCH(D)）都是 DL。我找到了这个高度学术性的目录，可以这么说，是代码以及它们在复杂性方面的技术含义，但我需要知道如何通过查看表现力来判断（至少一般而言）本体是深度学习还是完整本体。任何解释这些事情的帮助或链接将不胜感激。
如果有帮助的话，我还应该提供一些关于我试图用这些东西做什么的背景信息。我只是根据“颗粒信息”数据构建一个表，其中包含本体 ID 号（来自 url 列表）、每个本体的表达性和 OWL 配置文件，并且还说明该本体是完整的、DL 的还是 Lite 的。
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.
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.
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.
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.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
如果无论什么告诉你（Pellet？），一个本体是“OWL2”，而它可以以其他方式陈述诸如 EL、QL 或 RL 等配置文件之一，那么它所报告的本体可能包括位于每个表达能力之外的构造。的配置文件，但以其他方式包含在 OWL2 规范中。
据我了解，每个配置文件都基于不同的描述逻辑（DL），这些逻辑针对不同的目的：
据我所知，您链接到的目录是最新的，但如果您不熟悉逻辑并且无法识别每种语言所涵盖的结构，则使用起来有点困难。 W3C OWL2 配置文件页面以 OWL 语法总结了每个配置文件的语言表达能力。您可以参考此来确定每个 OWL2 语言配置文件的相交表达能力，而无需解释它们的语义（就 DL 而言，除非您熟悉描述逻辑，否则很难掌握，并且在 OWL2 的情况下） -RL，描述逻辑程序）。
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：
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.
As I understand it, each of the profiles are based on different description logics (DLs) that are geared towards different purposes:
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).
Lastly, note that the OWL1 'profiles' of Full, DL and Lite each correspond to yet other description logics:
Full、DL 和 Lite 是 OWL 的三种变体（风格），每种变体在表达性和计算复杂性之间构成了不同的折衷方案。 OWL Full 提供了最大的表达能力和句法自由度，但没有计算保证。 OWL Full 的语义是 RDFS 和 OWL DL（基于 RDF 的语义）的混合。 OWL DL 是 OWL Full 的受限版本。 OWL DL 提供了非常高的表达性、计算完整性（保证所有结论都是可计算的）和可判定性（所有计算都可以在有限时间内完成）。虽然 OWL DL 包含所有 OWL 语言构造函数，但它们只能在某些限制下使用。例如，OWL DL 数量限制可能不会分配给传递属性。 OWL Lite 是 OWL DL 的子集，旨在轻松实现。 OWL Lite的适用性有限，因为它仅适用于分类层次结构和简单约束。这三种风格在 OWL 和 OWL 2 中均可用。EL
、QL 和 RL 是三种 OWL 配置文件，每种配置文件都在表达能力和推理复杂性之间提供了不同的平衡，从而为不同的实现场景提供了更多选择。 EL 配置文件旨在处理具有大量属性和/或类的本体，QL 配置文件针对具有非常大的实例数据量和查询应答优先级的应用程序，而 RL 配置文件旨在满足以下要求的应用程序：具有相对较高表达能力的可扩展推理。
DL 表现力是指 OWL 逻辑基础中可用的数学构造函数集，即与您正在讨论的 OWL 风格/配置文件或本体相对应的描述逻辑 (DL)。
简而言之，ALC描述逻辑支持原子和复杂概念否定、概念交叉、普遍限制和有限存在量化。通过扩展 ALC 和传递性角色（即 S）
角色层次结构（H）、逆角色（I）、功能属性（F）和数据类型（D），我们得到SHIF（D）描述逻辑，大致对应于OWL Lite。通过向 SHIF(D) 添加名词 (O) 和基数限制 (N )，我们获得 SHOIN (D)，即 OWL DL 的底层描述逻辑。用复杂的角色包含公理、自反和非自反角色、不对称角色、不相交角色、通用角色、自构造、否定角色断言和限定数限制来扩展 SHOIN(D)，得到非常富有表现力但可判定的 SROIQ(D) 描述逻辑，很大程度上对应于 OWL 2 DL。
虽然OWL Full和OWL DL支持同一组构造函数，但是OWL Full对这些构造函数的使用没有限制（例如，对传递属性的使用没有限制），这使得OWL Full不可判定，而OWL DL是可判定的。
Full, DL, and Lite are three variants (flavors) of OWL, each constituting different compromises between expressivity and computational complexity. OWL Full has provides maximum expressiveness, syntactic freedom, but without computational guarantees. The semantics of OWL Full is a mixture of RDFS and OWL DL (RDF-based semantics). OWL DL is a restricted version of OWL Full. OWL DL provides very high expressiveness, computational completeness (all conclusions are guaranteed to be computable), and decidability (all computations can be finished in finite time). While OWL DL includes all OWL language constructors, they can be used only under certain restrictions. For example, OWL DL number restrictions may not be assigned to transitive properties. OWL Lite is a subset of OWL DL designed for easy implementation. OWL Lite has limited applicability, because it is suitable only for classification hierarchies and simple constraints. All three flavors are available in both OWL and OWL 2.
EL, QL, and RL are three OWL profiles, each of which provides a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity, thereby providing more options for different implementation scenarios. The EL profile was designed for handling ontologies with very large numbers of properties and/or classes, the QL profile is aimed at applications with a very large instance data volume and a priority for query answering, and the RL profile was designed for applications that require scalable reasoning with relatively high expressivity.
The DL Expressivity refers to the set of mathematical constructors available in the logical underpinning of OWL, i.e., the description logic (DL) that corresponds to the OWL flavor/profile or ontology you are talking about.
Very briefly, the ALC description logic supports atomic and complex concept negation, concept intersection, universal restrictions, and limited existential quantification. By extending ALC and transitivity roles (i.e., S) with
role hierarchies (H), inverse roles (I), functional properties (F), and datatypes (D), we get the SHIF(D) description logic, which roughly corresponds to OWL Lite. By adding nominals (O) and cardinality restrictions (N ) to SHIF(D), we obtain SHOIN (D), the description logic underlying OWL DL. Extending SHOIN(D) with complex role inclusion axioms, reflexive and irreflexive roles, asymmetric roles, disjoint roles, the universal role, self-constructs, negated role assertions, and qualified number restrictions yields to the very expressive yet decidable SROIQ(D) description logic, which largely corresponds to OWL 2 DL.
Although OWL Full and OWL DL support the same set of constructors, OWL Full does not have restrictions on the use of these constructors (e.g., no restrictions on the use of transitive properties), which makes OWL Full undecidable, while OWL DL is decidable.