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] FW: Individual realization

K. Kotis kotis at aegean.gr
Sun Apr 1 08:03:03 PDT 2007


Thanks for your answer.
 
Indeed, realization ss performed but in the wrong way for me. What exactly I
mean is that individuals already classified under the "defined" classes
(necessasy and sufficient conditions) do not automatically re-classified
under
the new primitive classes entered in the ontology (although they are
equivalent
classes). However, if I create an individual under these new primitive
classes,
then this individual is realized also under the "defined" class, as an
"inferred" individual.
 
KK

   _____  

From: fraktalek at gmail.com [mailto:fraktalek at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 4:53 PM
To: kotis at aegean.gr; User support for the Protege-OWL editor
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] FW: Individual realization


to be precise... I mean that pellet is able to classify instances of a class
as instances of another class in both Protege 3.2 and 3.2.1.
I am not sure what you mean by the "new primitive classes".

Jakub 


On 4/1/07, HYPERLINK "mailto:fraktalek at gmail.com"fraktalek at gmail.com
<HYPERLINK "mailto:fraktalek at gmail.com"fraktalek at gmail.com> wrote: 

Hello,

I don't thinks it's true. I was trying it this week in Protege 3.2 with
current Pellet and it worked. To be sure I downloaded the 3.2.1 release and
it works in it as well.

Regards,
Jakub



On 4/1/07, K. Kotis <HYPERLINK "mailto:kotis at aegean.gr" \n kotis at aegean.gr>
wrote:




Dear all, 

Is there a known problem with automatic classification of individuals using
the "compute inferred types" command of OWL menu in Protégé 3.2.1 (using
Pellet as reasoning engine)? 

Pellet automatically classifies new primitive classes inserted in the
taxonomy, however it cannot automatically classify (realize) the defined
classes' individuals under the new promitive ones. Is this valid? 

Thanks, 

K.K 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/741 - Release Date: 31/3/2007
8:54 ìì
  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/741 - Release Date: 31/3/2007
8:54 ìì
  


_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
HYPERLINK "mailto:protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu"
\nprotege-owl at lists.stanford.edu 
HYPERLINK "https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl"
\nhttps://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: HYPERLINK
"http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03"
\nhttp://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03






--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/741 - Release Date: 31/3/2007
8:54 ìì



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/741 - Release Date: 31/3/2007
8:54 ìì
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20070401/5483fc12/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list