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?

Timothy Redmond tredmond at stanford.edu
Thu Apr 29 08:43:47 PDT 2010


>
> 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? 

Your problem may be that this is not inconsistent unless your 
dp_nr_pages is a functional property.  Perhaps this is missing?  It is 
perfectly possible for a data property to have both the value 1 and the 
value 2 for the same individual.

-Timothy



On 04/29/2010 08:36 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:
>
> On 29 Apr 2010, at 16:30, Sara Paiva wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Yes, but first you have to specify a reasoner (which will 
> automatically trigger classification). Then you can see the result in 
> the "inferred class hierarchy" pane, and the unsatisfiable classes are 
> marked read and shown to be subclasses of Nothing.
>
>>
>> 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?
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood your example. Only declaring two different 
> values for the same property doesn't suffice as long as you haven't 
> said that only one value is allowed. So either you declare dp_nr_pages 
> to be functional, or you say that every book can have at most one 
> dp_nr_pages value by making Book a subclass of dp_nr_pages max 1 
> Thing. It then suffices for the unsatisfiability that your above two 
> axioms are subclass axioms, rather than equivalent classes axioms.
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20100429/390aa381/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list