Re: PROV-ISSUE-265 (TLebo): RL, why? [Ontology]

By the way, here are the tests against all profiles:

: stain@ralph ~/src/provenance-wg/prov/ontology;
bin/profilechecker.jar ProvenanceOntology.owl --all
OWL2DLProfile: OK
OWL2ELProfile: 64 violations
OWL2Profile: OK
OWL2QLProfile: 12 violations
OWL2RLProfile: OK

QL does not like irreflexive and functional. EL just goes crazy over
annotation properties.. not sure if I need to include an RDFS owl.





On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 15:49, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> Thanks, Stain. I look forward to trying this out.
>
> I added your notes at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#RL_compliance so that we can develop them further.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> On Mar 5, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
>> Right, I've now added my little JAR, which you can invoke just calling
>> 'make' in the ontology/ folder:
>>
>> : stain@ralph ~/src/provenance-wg/prov/ontology; make
>> java -jar bin/profilechecker.jar ProvenanceOntology.owl OWL2RLProfile
>>
>>
>> If everything is fine, there is no further output.
>>
>> However, if I add that Element is a subclass of (Activity or Entity) I get:
>>
>> : stain@ralph ~/src/provenance-wg/prov/ontology; make
>> java -jar bin/profilechecker.jar ProvenanceOntology.owl OWL2RLProfile
>> Use of non-superclass expression in position that requires a
>> superclass expression:
>> ObjectUnionOf(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o/Activity>
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o/Entity>)
>> [SubClassOf(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o/Element>
>> ObjectUnionOf(<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o/Activity>
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o/Entity>)) in
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o/>]
>> make: *** [test] Error 1
>>
>>
>> See https://github.com/stain/profilechecker for source code of the JAR
>> - it is based on OWL API 3.2.4, and can also check against other (or
>> all) profiles.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 13:56, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 18:40, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>> None of these require OWL-Full, and are well within DL. I haven't had
>>>> trouble reasoning over these sorts of restrictions with data in place.
>>>
>>> Well, we can keep it in DL if that still does the job, I just meant
>>> that there would be no OWL profile restrictions on forming those
>>> rules, and that it should be possible to 'retrofit' them like that.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>> School of Computer Science
>>> The University of Manchester
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>>
>>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 15:59:06 UTC