I ve got an Ontology written in OWL with Protege. But I don't find a solution for creating relations between Classes. Of course, there is a "subclass" relation, but I want to define my own relations. So I have a class hierarchy (which consists out of "subclass"-relations) but I want to create a relation, i.e. "has_Relation", to connect two classes.
My aim is to write a java programm in which I can get the information "which class is parentclass of a class?" and "to which class is a has_Relation connection?"
(I am not talking about individuals - I'm just talking about classes)
Thank you very much for your help in advance!
Best Regards
Natan
The simplest way to do this is to use an annotation property. In Protégé, select the class you want to relate to another class, then click the + beside "Annotations" in the Annotations tab. Then add the has_Relation property with the second button on the top left of the window. Then select the Entity IRI tab and the Classes subtab, select the other class you want to relate to and you're done.
However, you should rather not do this if has_Relation is an object property or a datatype property. If such is the case, you can use "punning", that is, you can make new individuals in the Individuals tab with the same names as the classes you want to relate. Then you relate them as if they were normal individuals. Note that this is allowed and valid in OWL 2 DL.
a bit late, but:
You can also go to the tabs menu and active the object properties tab
(Window> Tabs -> Object Properties )
Then you can create your own object property and assign its domain and range to which ever classes you want ( Description area of the individual property ).
Related
I have placed in the head section json script - "#type" AutmotiveBusiness, describing business with unique "#id" - https://URL/#AutomotiveBusiness. Normally, in this case it will be visible on all of the subwebpages and it is.
Now I want to add breadcrumbs on the webpages in the following way so I can specify that subwebpage belongs to https://URL/#AutomotiveBusiness:
#type ListItem
position 1
item
#id https://URL/#AutomotiveBusiness
#type ListItem
position 2
item
#type AboutPage
The problem is when I do this in the mentioned way, the head section from subwebpage disappear when checked in the google structured data testing tool. I understand that here it's the same rule which apply to ID's in CSS.
I am wondering what can I do so the subwebpage will be clearly assigned to the https://URL/#AutomotiveBusiness in the breadcrumbs.
Your issue is caused because entities with the same ID are considered to be about the same thing, and they are merged.
You are trying to say that a trail in a breadcrumb is also an AutomotiveBusiness.
Change the IDs in the breqadcrumb trail so that they relate to the URLs for the WebPages in the trail.
I am trying to set the value in an HTML input text box which is a part of ComponentA from the typescript code which is a part of ComponentB.
Taking a clue from this SO i tried doing:
(<HTMLInputElement>document.getElementById("name")).value = response.name;
But this is not working. Is there anything else i need to take care of?
EDIT: The element with Id "name" is in ComponentA and the above code that is trying to manipulate that element is in ComponentB
If you are trying to set the value of component1's textfield from the compoenent2 then you must have to use of ngModel i.e two way data binding. by providing component2 in the providers list you are able to access all the functions and variables of that component, then you can easily set your value. like this
suppose this is your component 2's value property
name:string = 'Pardeep Jain';
than you can access this in component like this-
<input type="text" [(ngModel)]='name'>
....
constructor(private delete1: Delete){
this.name = this.delete1.name;
}
Working Example
Also
(<HTMLInputElement>document.getElementById("name")).value = response.name;
is used to set the value of current template's field with id named as **name**
This is one of the cases when user interaction on one component ComponentA triggers an update on another component ComponentB.
This article describes multiple approaches, with example code, on how to pass information between components.
My personal favorite is the third approach mentioned in that article in which one of the component (say ComponentA) "listen" for update it is concerned about from any component (say ComponentB) via a service in between them, resulting in a loosely coupled components.
For more approaches here is another link.
I would like to have multiple level single table inheritance, is this possible? For example, if I have a billable_items table that I would like to split into client and consultants, and add a second level to the consultants, like 'wage', 'referral', 'transportation', etc, would this be possible?
Solved: as the documentation states, you just need to define the entire inheritance hierarchy in the discriminator map of the TOPMOST class. For any 2nd level base/abstract parent classes, you would NOT include them in the discriminator map, just make sure you add the entity annotation.
I think the title should make it pretty clear. I was wondering how you can assign a class to an object on stage. As you would do with actionscript:
var objectname:ClassName = new ClassName();
This would make a new object, but the current object already exists, it just needs to be notified that it's of the type "ClassName" so it can inherit it's properties.
I've also tried assigning the "ClassName" in the linkage as either the base path or the class name. But in either situations I get an error saying that the class needs to be unique when I use the same class on multiple objects.
So I would need something like
//example exists on stage
example.class = ClassName
Thanks
I will answer your question with a question : why are you assigning the same class on multiple objects?
If what you want is a common behavior for those objects, you should create your class and assign it has the Base Class on those objects.
I don't think there's a way to do just do that. But I do suggest you look into the decorator design pattern The idea here is that you don't change the class, but you "decorate it" with more functions as needed.
Hope this helps !
You seem to have this the wrong way around. You define a class in order to set specific behavior & properties for an object. In a real life example, if I want to build a radio , I will come up with a radio design & implement it. Now if I need several radios, I will use the same implementation to manufacture them.
If I now wish to turn my radio into a TV , I can't just tell my radio, hey , you're a TV now. I can either decide beforehand that I want a radio/tv object and switch behavior whenever necessary or I can create a new TV object and add the radio functionality to it by adding a radio component to my TV object.
var radio:Radio // your current object
//example 1
radio.switchToTv();
//example 2
var radioTv:Tv = new Tv( radio );
If for some reason it were mandatory to associate a <button> with more than one value, is there a good way to do it? For example ...
CSV:
<button value="Lancelot,Grail,blue">Answer</button>
JSON:
<button value="{'name':'Lancelot','quest':'Grail','color':'blue'}">Answer</button>
In the absence of a good way to do it, is there a traditional way?
Edit: another use case
Server M, the producer of the HTML, knows the user's current location and favorite genres, movie names, nearest theater, and next showtime. Server F knows how to query various 3rd party servers about how to get from point A to point B in order to arrive by time T. The user knows only the movie names: click Drag Me to Hell, and get the route. Server M could generate a form for each movie, with a single button showing the name of the movie and multiple hidden fields with the start and end locations and desired arrive-by time, but that would require a lot of repeated code. Every one of these one-button mini-forms would have the same method and action and the same hidden input field structure. Styling would be a collection of mini-forms rather than a collection of buttons, so FIELDSET and LEGEND are unavailable (because HTML forbids nested forms). Putting the parameters into the button's value attribute would be much tidier.
Well if you have to have a button element, why not use JavaScript to set a bogus property:
$('mybutton').compoundValue = { ... json ... };
and then reading the 'compoundValue's during form submit, etc.
Though really you might want to consider a group of checkboxes or some other form bits for what you're trying to accomplish.