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] inconsistent ontology error

Tania Tudorache tudorache at stanford.edu
Mon Jun 27 16:38:05 PDT 2011


Hi Jie,

I just tried out in the latest Protege 4.1 release candidate (build 231) 
the ontology you sent with Pellet 2.1.2, and it classified without any 
problem. It took a little bit of time, though.

I noticed that some of the imports are not always available online. I 
wonder if the inconsistent ontology error is somehow caused by this 
(although you would not expect it).

In case you do get the inconsistent ontology error again, please go to 
the Reasoner menu -> Explain inconsistent ontology and see which 
statements are likely to cause this error.

Tania


On 06/27/2011 04:05 PM, Jie Zheng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I worked on an ontology. When I ran reasoners (HermiT 1.3.4 and Pellet 
> 2.2.1) in Protege 4.1, both gave me inconsistent ontology error. 
> However, I ran Pellet 2.2.1 from command line . The result shows 
> ontology is consistent. I also tried to use latest stable HermiT (jar 
> downloaded on June 7, 2011) call from OWL API. It also show no 
> unsatisfied classes and can display the classes in the inferred 
> hierarchy. I cannot figure out why. I attached the owl for check.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Jie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20110627/7a62d451/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list