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] [protege-owl] Problem loading ontology

Tania Tudorache tudorache at
Wed Mar 5 18:25:24 PST 2008


No need to double post your messages.

Protege 3 cannot load arbitrary OWL Full ontologies. If you run the earl 
ontology through the WonderWeb OWL Validator 
(, you will get many warnings and 
see that it is OWL Full. One thing that is not supported in Protege 3 is 
the untyped resources (i.e. resources that are referenced but do not 
have a type declaration) and according to the validator, there are many 
of them.


Rui Lopes wrote:
> 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-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at
> Instructions for unsubscribing: 

More information about the protege-discussion mailing list