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
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).


On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:03 PM, ED<ecole.doctorale at> 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
> Instructions for unsubscribing:

More information about the protege-owl mailing list