Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-discussion] Domain and Range of Subproperties
tudorache at stanford.edu
Fri Jul 18 18:11:23 PDT 2008
No, there is no reason. I could actually not reproduce this exact
behavior. When I created the subproperty and added a new, more specific
domain, the UI has replaced the generic domain with the more specific one.
In any case, you should not be allowed to remove an inherited domain.
Please ask in future protege-owl related questions on the protege-owl
mailing list. This list is used only for protege-frames discussions.
Carstens, Carola wrote:
> Dear Protégé community,
> I am currently working on an ontology that integrates the Dublin Core
> and the SWRC vocabulary. I would now like to specify these
> vocabularies for my purposes by defining more specialized
> subproperties of the imported properties of Dublin Core and SWRC.
> I noticed that in Protégé a subproperty always inherits the domain and
> range of the superproperty. For example, the property "dc:publisher"
> is defined with the domain "swrc:Document" and the range
> "swrc:Organization" and "swrc:Person". If I create a supbproperty of
> "dc:publisher" int the property tab, it also has the domain
> "swrc:Document" and the range "swrc:Organization" and "swrc:Person".
> Nevertheless, I would like to define two subproperties of
> "dc:publisher" with more specific domains, having one property with
> the domain "swrc:Organization" and another one with the domain
> If I create a subproperty of "dc:publisher" the automatically
> inherited domain and range classes cannot be deleted.
> Nevertheless, I can create a new property "voc:publisher_Person" with
> the Domain "swrc:Document" and the range "swrc:Person" and then turn
> it into a subproperty of "dc.publisher" via drag & drop in the
> property tab. Invoking the Pellet reasoner for a consistency check
> does not lead to any error messages in this case.
> Is there a reason why Protégé does not support this way of modelling
> subproperties whose domains or ranges specify that of the
> superproperty? Maybe I am missing some modelling paradigm that leads
> to inconsistency?
> (I am working with the Protégé 3.4 beta version.)
> Thanks in advance for your comments.
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-discussion