- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 08:42:57 -0500
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: protege-discussion@SMI.Stanford.EDU, www-webont-wg@w3.org
[hmm... crossposting is awkward. And it's not clear that this is WG business. Consider using www-rdf-logic or public-webont-comments in the future, please.] On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 08:36, Bernard Vatant wrote: > Following my previous question I cc to WebOnt group for further inquiry > > > I've not checked if a sameAs declaration > > between two instances of disjoint classes > > is detected as an error. > > It is not :( > > I can create the following without problem under Protégé and export it in > OWL syntax. > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="Man"/> > <owl:Class rdf:ID="Woman"> > <owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#Man"/> > </owl:Class> > <Man rdf:ID="John"/> > <Woman rdf:ID="Linda"> > <owl:sameAs rdf:resource="#John"/> > </Woman> Does Protege claim to export only consistent ontologies? > Which seems clearly inconsistent IMO. This inconsistenvy is not detected by > OWL validators as well, such as http://owl.bbn.com/validator/ I don't believe that tool claims any sort of completeness. Perhaps "validator" is a misleading term. It's not defined in the specs. The spec uses terms like "complete OWL DL consistency checker". > So I begin to wonder if this is considered inconsistent, although at > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DisjointClasses > > it is clearly stated that > > "The disjointness of a set of classes can be expressed using the > owl:disjointWith constructor. It guarantees that an individual that is a > member of one class cannot simultaneously be an instance of a specified > other class." > > So? > > Bernard Vatant > Senior Consultant > Knowledge Engineering > Mondeca - www.mondeca.com > bernard.vatant@mondeca.com > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 6 October 2003 09:42:58 UTC