Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Cardinality restrictions in OWL
j.m.wright at massey.ac.nz
Tue Aug 4 03:06:52 PDT 2009
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 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.
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-owl