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

Thomas Russ tar at ISI.EDU
Mon Apr 2 09:59:02 PDT 2007


On Apr 1, 2007, at 8:03 AM, K. Kotis wrote:

> 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.

This is all correct behavior.

The misunderstanding that I see in the above description is that  
primitive classes CANNOT be equivalent to defined classes.  That  
violates the basic meaning of what a primitive class is.  A primitive  
class always has some other, unspecified characteristic that makes it  
primitive.

That results in exactly the phenomenon you see above.  The only way  
an instance can be a member of a primitive class in OWL is to be  
asserted to belong to that class or to be asserted to belong to one  
of its subclasses.




More information about the protege-owl mailing list