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] Checking inconsistence of a "some" relation

Martin O'Connor 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
distinct classes.

 

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:
http://www.co-ode.org/resources/tutorials/ProtegeOWLTutorial.pdf

 

Martin

 

  _____  

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
consistence. 
What is the best way to check it? By swrl rules?

Thanks!!
-- 
João Olavo Baião de Vasconcelos
Ciência da Computação
UFES 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20070804/2735ee0a/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list