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 90, Issue 18

André Luiz Tietböhl Ramos andreltramos at
Thu Jan 30 12:32:00 PST 2014

Dear Timothy,

Thanks for the very good explanation. Read below please.

On Ter, 2014-01-28 at 12:05 -0800,
protege-discussion-request at wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:12:12 -0800
> From: Timothy Redmond <tredmond at>
> To: protege-discussion at
> Hello,
> My guess is that with a little more detail we will be able to quickly 
> figure this out.  First, if possible it would be nice to see the ontology.
> > I do have an Individual (own#real)
> What is the full name of this individual?  If for example, you meant 
> that the name is owl:real so that the full name is

In order to solve this issue I deleted the individual however the error
still shows up. How so? Would there be a "hidden" individual somewhere
as cleverly show below?

> then this is probably the source of your problem.  Using reserved names 
> (such as the names of datatypes) for your own use can lead to ambiguous 
> parsing by different owl parsers.  It is possible that the parser used 
> by FaCT++ generated a different in memory version of your ontology than 
> the Protege parser did.  It may be a bit tricky to tell by looking at 
> the rdf what the full name of the resource is.
> > that does not exist in my ontology (it is not shown in Proteg?'s 
> > Indivuduals tab) but exists according to the reasoner (FACT++).
> By what means did FaCT++ tell you that the individual exists.  Did you 
> run FaCT++ from the command line or otherwise?  This may not be 
> important if my guess about your ontology is correct.

I run FACT++ from the GUI.  The message shown is:

ReasonerInternalException. Unsupported datatype

> You would want to only change those that occur as the individual.  You 
> should also at some point (maybe after getting this ontology to parse in 
> Protege as you expect it) change the namespace of these individuals so 
> that they are not in the owl: namespace.

Ok, thanks! I will when I'm good enough using Protege for I still don't
know how to accomplish it effectively. 

> > Version: 4.1
> If by this you mean Protege 4.1, I would recommend that you upgrade to 
> Protege 4.2 if you can.

Yes, it is Protege version 4.1. Using 4.2b or 4.3 doesn't help much


Andre Luiz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the protege-discussion mailing list