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-owl] WG: owl:AllDifferent

Mudunuri, Raj Raj.Mudunuri at medizin.uni-leipzig.de
Thu Sep 7 09:29:42 PDT 2006


Hi, 

 

I'm posting this again as I have not yet gotten any response so far...

 

Thanx,

Raj

 

________________________________

Von: protege-owl-bounce at crg-gw.Stanford.EDU
[mailto:protege-owl-bounce at crg-gw.Stanford.EDU] Im Auftrag von Mudunuri,
Raj
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. August 2006 11:45
An: protege-owl at SMI.Stanford.EDU
Betreff: [protege-owl] owl:AllDifferent

 

Hi,

 

I'm just pondering, why the individuals of owl ontologies in Protege are
not assumed as different entities by default... I mean, to define that
our individuals are different, we have to explicitely say this by using
the owl:AllDifferent construct... I can't imagine a case where we have
two individuals and that we want the reasoner to assume that these two
are the same... Anyhow the reasoning is done at concept level, but when
we start assigning individuals then we really mean that all the
individuals are different, don't we? So the reasoner can pop up a
warning/error when it finds that two individuals have a clash where
these two individuals seem to be the same according to the reasoner.
Opposite to the way it is done now, I guess!?

 

So, my question is, why don't we make all the individuals in the
ontology as different by default, instead of the user making it for
every individual of every class? Could some one tell me what problems
could arise if we do it this way?

 

Thanx,

Raj

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20060907/61f62e9f/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list