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] Query: how to enforce using reasoning property relationships on class instances

william fitzgerald wfitzgerald at tssg.org
Thu Jan 31 08:12:58 PST 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

dear OWL-DL Experts,

how do you enforce that a instances of a class (A) must have at least 1
property relationship to instances of a certain class (B) while it must
also have at least 1 property to another class (C) using that same property.

an example would be to steal a server one needs to break into the room
AND leave room un-noticed.

So stealing a sever requires: Server stealProp Room AND Server stealProp
Excape.

Classes: A,B and C are disjoint.

Property: someProp with domain = A, range = B and C also set

in the class description tab, i can state that instances of Class A must
have at least 1 "someProp" relationship to Class B "AND" also must have
at least 1 "someProp" relationship to Class C. A closure axiom is also
applied.

See attached ontology.

Running the reasoner passes consistency checks and so forth as expected.
But I expected something different when introducing Instances!

Now having created instances of class A, B and C called a1,b1 and c1, I
expected an error or warning of some kind to suggest that I failed to
link a1 to c1 along the someProp relationship.

By not entering any instances into the dialog box of the individual "a1"
instance tab, you would see a red box. This is to be expected given that
the class definition states it requires at least 1 relationship.

However, once I filled in the relationship to b1 the red box disappears.
Even though the class definition states that the someProp points to 2
separate classes and i presumed each separate definition restriction was
ANDed together. hence i expected to see an error saying "You need to
assign instance a1 to a member of Class C along the someProp property also".

Is this not possible in DL? Ensuring instances are deployed with valid
properties is out of scope for DL reasoning.

Have I missed something obvious?

Has Open World Assumption got something to do with it? In that just
because I do not assign a1 to c1 along someProp does not mean it is not
already done/assumed.


I am suing Protege 3.4 build 125 by either direct pellet or dig based
pellet (both make no difference).

regards,
Will.



- --
William M. Fitzgerald,
PhD Student,
Telecommunications Software & Systems Group,
ArcLabs Research and Innovation Centre,
Waterford Institute of Technology,
WIT West Campus,
Carriganore,
Waterford.
Office Ph: +353 51 302937
Mobile Ph: +353 87 9527083
Web: www.williamfitzgerald.org
     www.linkedin.com/in/williamfitzgerald
     www.ryze.com/go/wfitzgerald



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHofOKIcwlebz1MmwRAjjzAKC2SNfZIUhV52/utlIF7fwt7WkbpQCg+SzE
HWR0JwJUYCffX57Xtg3zQU4=
=cjeD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TestClass.owl
Type: text/rdf
Size: 2929 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20080131/3f1bb227/attachment.owl>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list