Re: Entailment checking with pizza ontology

No, the parser only needs to check whether it constitutes a valid URI. It has no business with its type, which exists on the logical level (and may be inferred in various ways).

Note that the Turtle example is passed without error - no need for a property type.
________________________________
From: Lorenz Buehmann <buehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020, 3:52 a.m.
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Re: Entailment checking with pizza ontology


This has nothing to do with (logical) inconsistency nor the Open World Assumption. The main issue for the parser is to decide on the type of the property.

I mean, just having

hasTopping some MozzarellaTopping

is ambiguous, isn't it? How could a parser decide on the type of hasTopping here?

On 02.03.20 20:20, William Van Woensel wrote:

Hi Mikael,



It does not look like an ontology inconsistency is being thrown, but rather a syntax error by the Manchester OWL Syntax parser. As mentioned, this is quite confusing to me since your code doesn't seem to contradict the syntax document.



Even if it was the reasoner, I feel that this “inconsistency” would contradict the open world assumption.



Perhaps you could submit an issue on the Protégé GitHub page<https://github.com/protegeproject/protege/issues> to get some clarity on the issue ..





W



-----Original Message-----

From: Mikael Pesonen <mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi><mailto:mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi>

Sent: March-02-20 5:16 AM

To: semantic-web@w3.org<mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>

Subject: RE: Entailment checking with pizza ontology





Thanks William for verifying that. Did you also use HermiT in Protégé?

That would indicate a bug or limitating feature in HermiT.



BR,

Mikael