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-discussion Digest, Vol 80, Issue 7

André Luiz Tietböhl Ramos andreltramos at gmail.com
Wed Mar 6 13:36:01 PST 2013


Hello,

Thanks for the quick reply!  Read below my comments please.

Sincerely,

Andre Luiz


On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 12:04 -0800,
protege-discussion-request at lists.stanford.edu wrote:


> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 11:24:58 -0800
> From: Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge at stanford.edu>
> To: User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor
> 	<protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Nothing class (newbie question)
> Message-ID: <AA4D44AE-AFEA-4007-A701-6D07A09BC891 at stanford.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> owl:Nothing is interpreted as the empty set.  It does not have any instances.  Because it is 
> interpreted as the empty set, it is a subclass of every other class (since the empty set is a 
> subset of every set).  owl:Thing appears at the top of the class hierarchy, whilst owl:Nothing 
> appears at the bottom of the class hierarchy.  Hope this helps.


Yes, it does.  I don't think this matters much though but the Nothing is
shown in the top of the tree and in red.  Since I'm just beginning  I'm
modeling as much as I can using classes and leaving individuals for a
step later.  In other words, how to define an instance although at this
point I don't need them AFAIK?

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:55:56 -0800
From: Csongor Nyulas <csongor.nyulas at stanford.edu>
To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Nothing class (newbie question)
Message-ID: <51379F4C.80909 at stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Also, if the reasoner classifies some classes as subclass of
owl:Nothing 
it means that those classes are unsatisfiable, or as Matthew said, they 
cannot have any instances. This may be due to some modelling errors in 
your ontology.

Csongor


Interesting opinion...  What kind of modeling errors could there be?
Should I understand my modeling is somewhat flawed then?  As it is it
seems ok to me even though I'm from more computer programming/modeling
focus, UML specifically.

-- 
Andre Luiz Tietbohl Ramos
http://www.feng.pucrs.br/~andreltr 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20130306/0d6f0381/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list