Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Checking inconsistence of a "some" relation
martin.oconnor at stanford.edu
Sat Aug 4 10:10:22 PDT 2007
More precisely: The open world assumption means that you can't assume that
individuals of C are not also individuals of B just because they are
You can use OWL restrictions to declare them disjoint you do not need SWRL
to do this.
You need to read the Manchester OWL tutorial:
From: protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu
[mailto:protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of João Olavo
Baião de Vasconcelos
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:33 PM
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Checking inconsistence of a "some" relation
On 8/3/07, Samson Tu <swt at stanford.edu> wrote:
However, the 'red border' check is a legacy from Protege frame. It doesn't
really mean much in OWL, with its open world assumption.
The fact that you don't have an explicit B instance associated with A
doesn't mean that the ontology is inconsistent.
I got it. The open world assumption means that you can't assume that a C
isn't a B just bec they are distinct classes, right?
But it's important to me to check if a C is/isn't a B for the sake of
What is the best way to check it? By swrl rules?
João Olavo Baião de Vasconcelos
Ciência da Computação
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-owl