Re: Inconsistency is not raised dataAllValuesFrom

On 25 December 2014 at 17:57, Leila Bayoudhi <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> I adopted the idea from this link. He and other works consider this case
> leading to unsatisfiable classes.
> this is the idea of this anti-pattern:
> "The ontology developer created a universal restriction to say that C1
> instances can only be linked with property R to C2 instances. Next, a new
> universal restriction is added saying that C1 instances can only be linked
> with R to C3 instances, with C2 and C3 disjoint. In general, this is because
> the ontology developer forgot the previous axiom in the same class or in the
> parent class."
>

This is an antipattern (i.e., an error) under the assumption that the
property R is intended to be used for an individual - which is the
common case. But, as Bijan remarked earlier, if R is not used in any
assertion for an individual belonging to this restriction, then
there's nothing wrong with the individual.
Such a construct is /likely/ to be an error (it's a very complicated
way to say R cannot be used for an individual), but it might be
intended behaviour, and it's not forbidden by any rules.
Cheers,
I.

>
> Le Jeudi 25 décembre 2014 17h22, Uli Sattler
> <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk> a écrit :
>
>
> ...from what i can see you, you only have 2 "allValuesFrom" restrictions on
> Person - so it can't possibly be inconsistent (as long as I don't have any
> hamsters, it is perfectly uncontradictory to state that "all my hamsters are
> black" and "all my hamsters are not black...this will only cause an
> inconsistency if I would also say "I have some hamsters", which would then
> need to be both black and not black).
>
> So, I repeat my earlier suggestion to read up more on owl semantics...
>
> Cheers, Uli
>
> On 25 Dec 2014, at 15:48, "Leila Bayoudhi" <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> What I model it isn't equivalent to the OWL antipattern
> OnlinessIsLoneliness(OIL)?
>
>
> Le Jeudi 25 décembre 2014 16h34, Uli Sattler
> <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk> a écrit :
>
>
> Hi Leila
>
> this ontology is consistent - and even the class person is satisfiable: it
> only becomes unsatisfiable once you request that a person must have an
> Id...but you don't seem to say that yet,
>
> Since this mailing list is read by humans, it would be good to post your
> examples in Manchester syntax - the syntax you use is designed for
> computers...
>
> Also, I strongly suggest you look more closely into Owl's model based
> semantics - to get a better understanding of it. All the best!
>
> Cheers, Uli
>
> On 25 Dec 2014, at 11:38, "Leila Bayoudhi" <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I intentionally want to raise inconsistency in my ontology by creating these
> axioms
>  <owl:Class
> rdf:about="http://www.semanticweb.org/dell/ontologies/2014/11/untitled-ontology-121#person">
>         <rdfs:subClassOf>
>             <owl:Restriction>
>                 <owl:onProperty
> rdf:resource="http://www.semanticweb.org/dell/ontologies/2014/11/untitled-ontology-121#hasIdentifier"/>
>                 <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="&owl;rational"/>
>             </owl:Restriction>
>         </rdfs:subClassOf>
>         <rdfs:subClassOf>
>             <owl:Restriction
>                 <owl:onProperty
> rdf:resource="http://www.semanticweb.org/dell/ontologies/2014/11/untitled-ontology-121#hasIdentifier"/>
>                 <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="&xsd;dateTime"/>
>             </owl:Restriction>
>         </rdfs:subClassOf>
>     </owl:Class>
>  However, Hermit says that all is fine: the ontology is consistent( even the
> value spaces of the two data ranges are disjoint)
> Can you tell me please why?
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 December 2014 17:51:55 UTC