Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] Protégé OWL issues

Thomas Russ tar at ISI.EDU
Fri Nov 24 20:12:50 PST 2006


This should be on the protege-owl mailing list instead.


On Nov 22, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Morozov, Anna ((DWLBC)) wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We are using the Protégé 3.2.
> We have come across the following issues:
> ·	If a Relation is defined (without Range or Domain being  
> specified) and then subsequently used in association with a  
> specific Class (complete with a specification of the Range to which  
> the operator some applies) erroneous data can be entered when  
> specifying an Instance.  In this case, an Instance of ANY Class in  
> the ontology can be specified, not just those in the range  
> specified when the Relation was applied.

This is correct behavior.
It would even be correct behavior if you specified range and domain  
for the relation.

The important thing to remember about OWL is that range and domain  
are INFERENCES and not type restrictions.  The effect of making the  
assertion that you note is to allow OWL to conclude that the instance  
in question belongs to the range concept.

>
> ·	Complex NESTED specifications do not seem to be possible and  
> consequently, when entering details for a specific Instance (when  
> the parent and parent's parent details are ideally echoed as the  
> nominated Relation Instance is selected) the data entry can easily  
> go astray.

I don't understand what you are saying here.






More information about the protege-discussion mailing list