Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Query: Subclasses or Sibling
tar at ISI.EDU
Tue Apr 3 16:34:51 PDT 2007
On Apr 3, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Timothy Redmond wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Thomas Russ wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:59 AM, william fitzgerald wrote:
>>> Method 2:
>>> I think dealing with individuals is more a rules engine thing than
>>> a DL
>>> reasoner area.
>> That depends on the particular DL reasoner.
>> Other DL languages and reasoners have had mechanisms that are quite
>> capable of reasoning using combinations of closed world reasoning,
>> limited closed world reasoning, and even cardinality restrictions
>> asserted directly about instances.
> This thread has been going on for some time so I may be missing some
> context. But it seems to me that you are making a link between
> reasoning about individuals and closed world reasoning. I think that
> these are two entirely different issues.
Correct, they are different issues. In this particular case, the
was reasoning about "all values from" restrictions for instance
I do think that closed-world reasoning tends to be more of an issue when
dealing with instances than with concept subsumption, since I don't
there are any class subsumption inferences that require knowing that the
current set of fillers is the complete set. That seems to me to be more
of an instance-level concern.
Are there examples where closed world would be needed in subsumption
reasoning between class definitions?
More information about the protege-owl