- From: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:53:38 -0700
- To: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>
- Cc: Matías Parodi <mparodilabs@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADfiEMN27a35=9Q1EGkzNS0xMHCv5e1WGe6=AoH80_zsZg+aOw@mail.gmail.com>
This sounds about right from my experience. I found that when defining property chains, I ran into problems and discovered that I could do any two of the following three things: * keep the property (PropA) defined as a property chain * have PropA defined to be a subproperty of some other property * use a min or max cardinality with 2 or more, or an exactly. To repeat for emphosis, what this means is that if I did any of the following, the inferencing error went away: * don't have PropA as a property chain * don't have PropA be a subproperty of anything * only use min 1 or max 1, vs. 2 or more, or an exactly in restrictions It was pretty mysterious behavior that is not described in an easy to understand way in the spec (if you are not a logician) and is much better explained above by Michael Dumontier. On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com > wrote: > The relevant section is here: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Global_Restrictions_on_Axioms_in_OWL_2_DL > > basically, you can't use transitive roles and composed roles (e.g. from > property chain) in min/max/exactly/self axioms or in combination with > functional, inverse functional, irreflexive, asymmetric and disjoint > properties. there's also restrictions on the property hierarchy, in that > the composed roles can't lead to a cycle (must maintain partial order; see > text for details), along with properties that have non-simple subproperties. > > m. > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>wrote: > >> This is tricky, read very carefully the OWL spec. There are obscure and >> bizare (from a common sense user perspective) restrictions that result from >> the inference needs. Good luck. >> >> >> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013, Matías Parodi wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'm trying to understand in which cases it's allowed to use >>> owl:propertyChainAxiom and when it's not. >>> >>> I've written a small ontology to understand it (I pasted it at the end), >>> but I still couldn't figure out why HermiT (using Protege) says "The given >>> property hierarchy is not regular" and "There is a cyclic dependency >>> involving property :isRelative". >>> >>> I know there's a loop there but what is the real problem? After all, how >>> is that different from a owl:TransitiveProperty? Any way to intuitively >>> understand what is wrong with it? >>> >>> Any idea? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Matt >>> >>> --- >>> @prefix : <http://foo/bar#>. >>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>. >>> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>. >>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>. >>> @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>. >>> >>> :Person a owl:Class. >>> >>> :isRelativeOf >>> a owl:TransitiveProperty; >>> rdfs:domain :Person; >>> rdfs:range :Person; >>> .. >>> >>> :isAncestorOf >>> rdfs:subPropertyOf :isRelativeOf; >>> owl:propertyChainAxiom (:isRelativeOf :isAncestorOf); >>> . >>> --- >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from an input-challenged device. >> > > > > -- > Michel Dumontier > Associate Professor of Bioinformatics, Carleton University > Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest > Group > http://dumontierlab.com > -- Michael Uschold Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts http://www.semanticarts.com LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 18:54:05 UTC