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?

Nick Drummond nick.drummond at cs.manchester.ac.uk
Fri Aug 3 09:43:58 PDT 2007


In addition,

C -> p exactly 0

is not qualified. Therefore, you can't relate members of C to  
anything along p.
In OWL1.1 you could be more specific:

C -> p exactly 0 B

This is equivalent to the OWL1.0 expression:

C -> not (p some B)

if you wanted to be less restrictive.

Nick

On 3 Aug 2007, at 17:28, Thomas Russ wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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