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] Property cardinality exactly 0: is this correct?

Thomas Russ tar at ISI.EDU
Fri Aug 3 09:28:29 PDT 2007


On Aug 3, 2007, at 8:05 AM, João Olavo Baião de Vasconcelos wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I've this situation: a class A that has many classes under it.  
> Class A is related to class B by the property P. But I want to say  
> that one of A subclasses (C) is not related to B.
>
> As I didn't add any cardinality restriction, it means that one A is  
> related to 0 or more Bs.
> So, I'm thinking in add a new restriction to C that says: P exactly  
> 0. That is, a C is related to 0 Bs.
>
> Is there any problem doing this?
> Will it be a problem for a reasoner?

This is all fine.

As long as the restrictions you add to subclasses are more specific,  
then things are good.  What you are not allowed to do (in a  
consistent KB) is to introduce disjoint restrictions.  You CAN write  
more general restrictions, but they won't have any effect, since the  
inherited more specific ones will take precedence.





More information about the protege-owl mailing list