Hi Patrick,

On 03/19/2012 12:54 PM, Patrick McCrae – LangTec wrote:

> Somehow I am unable to obtain the expected transitive inference result:

>

> Given that

>

> A --is_in--> B

>

> B --is_in--> C

>

>

> I would have expected that any instances of C should also be in A.

???

If you represent the two lines above by:

A is_in some B

B is in some C

AND

if you make is_in a transitive relation, then the consequence should be

that all the instances of A are in some instance of C

> Therefore, I would have expected that all instances of C are also

> contained in the set defined by

>

> is_in() exactly 1 A

>

The attached ontology returns what I believe you expect after

classification :-)

olivier

_______________________________________________

protege-owl mailing list

[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owlInstructions for unsubscribing:

http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03