Fwd: [protege-owl] Pellet gives strange, wrong error with Booleans

Sigh, my reply from my manchester account bounces on all the other  
lists as I'm not subscribed :) So I forward this exchange here to  
complete the record.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Begin forwarded message:

> Oy, lists all over. It's a mess :(
>
> On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Thomas Russ wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Stephen Larson wrote:
>>
>>> Bijan,
>>>
>>>    Sorry for not using the appropriate channels before.  I have  
>>> included other lists on this because I think that it is important  
>>> to clear this up.
>>>
>>>    I'm sending you the simplest example of this problem that I  
>>> can find.  It doesn't seem to happen with a single simple case of  
>>> the presence of a boolean.  The behavior appears to be more  
>>> complex than that.  But it is the case that the problem exists,  
>>> I've sent you an example ontology that exhibits it, and it can be  
>>> reversed by commenting out the booleans.  It is reproducible if  
>>> you use the tools that I have described.
>>>
>>>    I understand if you are frustrated with the DIG interface.   
>>> But, it seems like you are implying that Pellet doesn't really  
>>> support the interface.
>>
>> The issue isn't with Pellet.  It was an encoding problem with  
>> Protege's DIG interface.
>
> Thanks, Thomas, for verifying that.
>
>> I recently reported this and Tania Tudorache indicated on Aug. 28  
>> that a fix for the problem was going in.  Look for the messages on  
>> the Protege-OWL mailing list with the subject
>>    "Problem with DIG rendering of boolean-valued properties"
>>
>> Synopsis for non-subscribers:  Protege was mapping boolean  
>> datatypes to int for DIG, but not translating the "true" and  
>> "false" values into integers.  Protege will now map true => 1 and  
>> false => 0 as well, which should solve the problem by transforming  
>> boolean-valued datatype properties into limited integer-valued ones.
> [snip]
>
> Well, it seems that we could do a tiny extension to DIG to support  
> the well known OWL datatypes, as a more soothing bandaid. It  
> wouldn't be all that difficult to do and is probably better than an  
> encoding like that.
>
> Really, we'd only need to update a few things (any reasoner  
> supporting those datatypes; the client lib). No need to wait for  
> DIG 2. But AFAIK, Protege is the only serious DIG1.1 client in wide  
> use, so the ball is in their court for how they'd like to handle  
> things.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 19:29:23 UTC