Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] FW: Individual realization
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"
> (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
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