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] Cardinality restrictions in OWL

Jevon Wright j.m.wright at massey.ac.nz
Tue Aug 4 03:06:52 PDT 2009


Hi Ed,

I thought that might be the case. But how would that describe the
second scenario, when I specifically define an Individual that is
inconsistent with the structure? I couldn't get any cardinality
constraint to fail (including exactly).

Thanks!
Jevon

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:03 PM, ED<ecole.doctorale at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If I only create the one Container individual and no Node individuals,
>> and ask the FaCT++ reasoner to execute over this ontology, no error
>> occurs, even though I have defined a Container individual which does
>> not contain any Nodes.
>
> The Ontology is a guarantee for consistency, not completeness; that means that
> if your containers doesn't have any node connect is not sufficient to say that
> there is something wrong with your ontology ... keep in mind that you're working
> on a model which make the hypothesis of the Open world Assumption .
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>



More information about the protege-owl mailing list