Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-discussion] Odd ontology? Your feedback is appreciated
tar at ISI.EDU
Fri Sep 19 14:12:53 PDT 2008
On Sep 19, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Naji Mouawad wrote:
> I have the following class hierarchy (Ontology included below)
> and a property: IsBusinessUser which has an inverse proprety:
> -ServicesBusinessUsers some User_1
> Business_Apps has two necessary and sufficient conditions:
> -ServicesBusinessUsers some Named_Users
Looks like something is missing here. Or do you mean to say that
User_1 is a subclass of Applications?
> Business_Users has two necessary and sufficiet conditions:
> -IsBusinessUser some Named_Apps
> When I run 'classify taxonomy' Apps_1 shows correctly under
> Business_Apps but User_1 does not show up under Business_Users. I
> would have expected the reasoner to infer that since
> -App_1 ServicesBusinessUsers User_1,
> -ServicesBusinessUser is the inverse of IsBusinessUser, and
> -Business_users has as a necessray and sufficient condition
> IsBusinessUsers some Named_Apps
> then it follows that User_1 satisfies the conditions of
> IsBusinessUser and should show up beneath Business_Users but such is
> not the case.
No, it does not follow.
You are confusing existential and universal quantification in the
Just because All App_1 instances services SOME instance of User_1, it
doesn't mean that ALL instances of User_1 use some instance of App_1.
More information about the protege-discussion