Hilmar at 11:10, 13 November 2009

2009-11-13T11:10:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:10, 13 November 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:

	For use in reasoning, consider the fact that the union of disjoint monophyletic classes cannot be monophyletic. If we set up this configuration - class A equal to the union of disjoint subclasses B and C, all of them equal to the descent closure of their respective founders - and run Fact++ to check for consistency, it tells us the ontology is inconsistent.		For use in reasoning, consider the fact that the union of disjoint monophyletic classes cannot be monophyletic. If we set up this configuration - class A equal to the union of disjoint subclasses B and C, all of them equal to the descent closure of their respective founders - and run Fact++ to check for consistency, it tells us the ontology is inconsistent.

			[[Category:Vocamp]]
			[[Category:Ontology]]

Hilmar: moved VoCamp/Monophyly in DL to VoCamp1/Monophyly in DL

2009-11-11T15:24:19Z

moved VoCamp/Monophyly in DL to VoCamp1/Monophyly in DL

New page

Can one express monophyly conveniently in OWL-DL, and use it in reasoning? Yes. See [[File:Monophyletic_example.owl.txt]].

The idea is to take taxa to be OWL classes whose members might be variously individual organisms or populations of organisms (at some time point). A class (taxon) is monophyletic if it is closed under descent and has a unique founder. In DL you can assert that a class is monophyletic by giving a name to its founding individual and equating the class with the class of descendents of that individual.

We start by defining a relation is-child-of that is inverse functional (this would argue for asexual reproduction, restriction to consideration of maternal or paternal contribution, or to the individuals being populations), and a relation is-descendent-of that is its reflexive transitive closure. To do this, assert that is-child-of is a subproperty of is-descendent-of, and assert that is-descendent-of is transitive and reflexive.

Now create a monophyletic taxon by creating a class and its founder individual and specifying that the class is equivalent to the (anonymous) class 'is-descendend-of value founder1' where founder1 is the founder.

For use in reasoning, consider the fact that the union of disjoint monophyletic classes cannot be monophyletic. If we set up this configuration - class A equal to the union of disjoint subclasses B and C, all of them equal to the descent closure of their respective founders - and run Fact++ to check for consistency, it tells us the ontology is inconsistent.

VoCamp1/Monophyly in DL - Revision history

Hilmar at 11:10, 13 November 2009

Hilmar: moved VoCamp/Monophyly in DL to VoCamp1/Monophyly in DL