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] does protege allow this kind of check consistency?

Sara Paiva sara.paiva at gmail.com
Thu Apr 29 08:30:15 PDT 2010


Thank you Thomas.
In my specific case, with this small ontology I can´t make the classifier to
tell me that my class is unsatisfiable.

Do i run the "Classify" option in "Reasoner" menu?

As for the properties i created them just like i mentioned below "Equivalent
classes" like:

dp_nr_pages value 1
dp_nr_pages value 2

is this correct?

thanks again.



On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Thomas Schneider <schneidt at cs.man.ac.uk>wrote:

>
> On 29 Apr 2010, at 16:12, sop wrote:
>
>
>> Hi everyone?
>>
>> I have been looking for owl class descriptions and i have doubts regarding
>> the check consistency that is possible to perform in protege.
>>
>> suppose i have a class "book" with a datatype property "nr_pages".
>>
>> Is it possible to add restrictions like "nr_pages value 1" and "nr_pages
>> value 2" in such a way that the classifier can see that this is an
>> inconsistent class (never will have instances) has no instance can obey
>> the
>> two restricitons.
>>
>
> Sure, you can do this. But please bear in mind that a class forced to have
> no instances is called unsatisfiable, whereas (in)consistency is a property
> of ontologies. If O is inconsistent, then classification becomes meaningless
> and standard reasoners usually produce an error message. (There's
> paraconsistent reasoning though, but that's for a new thread.)
> Unsatisfiability of a class C can be produced in many different ways, for
> instance by saying that C is the subclass of two disjoint classes, directly
> by saying C subClassOf owl:Nothing, or more indirect ways .....
> Unsatisfiability is sometimes called incoherence too.
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/does-protege-allow-this-kind-of-check-consistency-tp2075649p2075649.html
>> Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk  |
> |  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt  |
> |  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161 2756136  |
> |  University of Manchester                                            |
> |  Oxford Road                                             _///_       |
> |  Manchester M13 9PL                                      (o~o)       |
> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
>
> Sconser (n.)
>  A person who looks around them when talking to you, to see if there's
>  anyone more interesting about.
>
>                  Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20100429/6ffd6b91/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list