Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] does protege allow this kind of check consistency?
tar at ISI.EDU
Thu Apr 29 08:53:29 PDT 2010
On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:45 AM, sop wrote:
> Oh i get you point.
> But i want to go a little further than that and that´s what i don´t
> know the
> reasoner can do.
> Let me clarify for you.
> Suppose i want to transform a query into a owl class description
> just to see
> if the query can be satisfied (not obtain results).
> now suppose restriction 1 is "number of pages is 1" and the other
> restriction is "number of pages is 2". this query makes no sense as
> no book
> can have 1 page and, at the same time, 2 pages. Right?
The reasoner will only know that "number of pages" can only take one
value if you tell it that. So that is why you would need to make
"number of pages" be a functional property or you need to attach a
cardinality restriction that says it can only take a single value.
Otherwise the reasoner has no way of knowing that you can't have
> are you understanding me? do you think this can be done?
> plus: is there the notion of "and" and "or" because the same two
> restrictions above with "or" already made sense.......
Intersection and Union classes give you and and or restrictions.
Complement gives you negation, but this is strict logical negation, so
it requires a proof that the negated clause cannot be satisfied.
Also, you will need to perhaps beware of the effects of open world
> hope I am not making this confusing.
> View this message in context: http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/does-protege-allow-this-kind-of-check-consistency-tp2075649p2075726.html
> Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 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