W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Why this ontology is not marked as inconsistent?

From: Roberto Yus <roberto.yus@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:22:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP1x_0FPupRwRB-RECkYRxqWs4ckTZkjiPxmUT0WKwAB6kpHrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mauro Dragoni <dragoni@fbk.eu>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
It looks like one of these "open-world assumption problems" to me. If you
did not define that the concept "Worker" is disjoint with the concept
"Customer" then the ontology is consistent.

With the open-world assumption "W1" can be a "Worker" and a "Customer" at
the same time because you are not restricting it. Therefore, the reasoner
classifies "W1" as a "Customer".

Best regards,

Roberto

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Mauro Dragoni <dragoni@fbk.eu> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I'm trying to model some inconsistency examples for working purposes but
> I'm not able to understand why this ontology is not marked as inconsistent
> by the Hermit reasoner through Protege.
>
> Briefly, I defined three concepts "Shop", "Customer", and "Worker".
> A property "hasCustomer" with domain "Shop" and range "Customer".
> Three individuals "S1", "C1", and "W1" of types "Shop", "Customer", and
> "Worker" respectively.
> On the "Shop" concept I defined a universal restriction on the
> "hasCustomer" property.
> Then, on the individual "S1", I instantiated the relationship
> "hasCustomer" with the individual "W1" (type Worker) instead of "C1" (type
> Customer).
>
> So, I expected an inconsistency message by the reasoner about the property
> range.
> Instead, it infers that "W1" is also of type Customer.
>
> I'm trying to figuring it out... but any help is appreciated.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mauro.
>
> --
> Dr. Mauro Dragoni
> Post-Doc Researcher at Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK-IRST)
> Via Sommarive 18, 38123, Povo, Trento, Italy
> Tel. 0461-314053
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 12:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:43:02 UTC