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] overwriting inherited conditions in owl

Jane Eisenstein janee at softweave.com
Thu Apr 26 05:25:42 PDT 2007


I don't believe you will be able define a subclass with cardinality  
restrictions that violate those of it's superclass. For an instance  
of B to also be a valid instance of A, it must have one and only one p.

Jane Eisenstein

On Apr 26, 2007, at 6:57 AM, Antonio Toral wrote:

> hi,
>
> I'm using Protege 3.2.1. with the OWL plugin to model an OWL  
> ontology. I have
> a problem regarding intherited conditions. Although I've looked for  
> it in the
> archive of the list I haven't found any message with a related  
> topic. I'll
> try to explain it with a simple example:
>
> Let's say I have an ontology with the following elements:
> - Classes A and B (B is a subclass of A)
> - ObjectProperty p
>
> I'd like A to have one and only one p (max 1 & min 1 for A) and so  
> I apply two
> restrictions to A:
> - p mincardinality 1
> - p maxcardinality 1
>
> I'd like B to have at least one p (min 1 for B) but B inherits from A:
> - p mincardinality 1
> - p maxcardinality 1
>
> p minc. 1 is ok but I'd like to overwrite p maxc. 1. So far I've  
> only come up
> with the solution of writing a new maxcardinality restriction to B  
> such as:
> - p maxcardinality 100000 (so this new maxc. overwrites the  
> inherited maxc. 1)
>
> however, what I'd like is not to have any maxcardinality at all for  
> B! is that
> possible?
>
> thanks in advance!
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/ 
> faq.html#01a.03
>




More information about the protege-owl mailing list