Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] re asoner doesn't react to intersection
back_to_basic_69 at hotmail.com
Tue May 6 10:18:56 PDT 2008
So due the open world reasoning the reasoner doesn't see this ass a problem,
but in my ontologie there should be at least one.
Must I change the rule, or is it correct?
Thomas Russ wrote:
> On May 6, 2008, at 6:54 AM, bassiee wrote:
>> i have implemented following OWL-DL rule for a class called 'classA':
>> (∃ has_b B) ⊔ (∃ has_c C)
>> When I make on object of classA, and I don't't create any resources.
>> Then the reasoner doesn't react to it... The reasoner should notise
>> that at
>> least one of bouth shouls have a resource.
>> I used pellet and racer pro.
>> Is this normal?
> Yes. OWL uses open-world reasoning, so it supports having
> restrictions where the fillers are not known to the OWL reasoner.
> OWL knows that there is some filler, it just doesn't know what it is
> (nor, given the disjunction, which property or type the filler is
> associated with.
> Restrictions in OWL are inferences, not type checks. That is a subtle
> but important distinction.
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/reasoner-doesn%27t-react-to--intersection-tp17083147p17088041.html
Sent from the Protege - OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the protege-owl