Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Query: how to enforce using reasoning property relationships on class instances
wfitzgerald at tssg.org
Thu Jan 31 08:12:58 PST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
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
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
I am suing Protege 3.4 build 125 by either direct pellet or dig based
pellet (both make no difference).
William M. Fitzgerald,
Telecommunications Software & Systems Group,
ArcLabs Research and Innovation Centre,
Waterford Institute of Technology,
WIT West Campus,
Office Ph: +353 51 302937
Mobile Ph: +353 87 9527083
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2929 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the protege-owl