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] problem loading ontology

Nick Drummond nick.drummond at
Wed Mar 5 08:51:41 PST 2008


I've been reassured this will load in Protege 4.0.
Do you know what software the developers have been using to generate  
this ontology?


On 5 Mar 2008, at 16:31, Rui Lopes wrote:

> (Already posted to protege-owl, but still haven't got a reply.  
> Apologies
> for the dupe).
> Hi all,
> I have encountered a strange error while loading an OWL ontology. This
> error occurs both by opening it from a local copy in my computer, or
> importing it from the Web into another ontology. The ontology in
> question is EARL (Evaluation and Report Language 1.0 Schema), as
> currently being standardised by the W3C.
> The ontology location (and namespace) is,
> whereas the current state of the spec can be found at
> The error in question is as follows: (if required, I can post later  
> the
> full exception stack as seen in the logs.)
> "
> There were errors at performing operation.
> 1. Exception class java.lang.RuntimeException.
> Message: Illegal superclass DefaultRDFList(@_:A181 of
> [DefaultOWLNamedClass(rdf:List, FrameID(0:9109 0))]) of p1:Assertion  
> has
> type class edu.stanford.smi.protegex.owl.model.impl.DefaultRDFList
> 2. Errors at loading OWL file from
> file:/Users/ruilopes/Documents/workspace/UUEval/ontologies/earl- 
> temp.owl
> Please consider running the file through an RDF or OWL validation
> service such as:
>   - RDF Validator:
>   - OWL Validator:
> See console and log for more details.
> "
> I have successfully validated the ontology in the two suggested  
> services
> (RDF and OWL validators). Moreover, I was able to use Jena
> programmatically to create an OWL ontology, append an OWL import
> construct pointing to, serialise it to XML,
> query it through SPARQL successfully, etc. Therefore, it seems to me,
> imho, that it might be something weird happening in Protege.
> However, the way the ontology has been specified is a bit unusual,  
> since
> it uses OWL constructs only when there's no equivalent in rdf/rdfs
> (e.g., rdfs:Class, no owl:Ontology, etc.).
> This bug/feature has been reproduced both in Protege stable (3.3.1)  
> and
> beta (3.4), both behind proxy/firewall and open Internet environments.
> I'm using Protege in a Mac OS X 10.5.2 with 1Gb of RAM.
> Is this a known bug of Protege? Is it a problem with the way the
> ontology has been specified (if so, it should be reported to W3C's
> respective WG)? Or is it something else incorrect from my side?
> Please feel free to ask for more information, if required. Thanks in
> advance for the help!
> Cheers,
> Rui
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at
> Instructions for unsubscribing:

More information about the protege-discussion mailing list