There is literally no reason to
ask the same question twice. I mean, you asked exactly the same
question the day before, what prevents you from waiting for an
answer if anybody has an answer to your problem at all?
In the meantime, what about replying to Michaels useful hints
regarding your modeling errors first? Look like your ontology has
a lots of root errors like wrong modeling and even the naming
scheme could be better.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik people here are helping
voluntarily, mostly in the free time or coffee breaks - it's not a
commercial product and you don't have commercial support here.
Regarding your problem, I'm a bit too lazy to click through all
your screenshots and moreover, it's really hard to reproduce or
workaround errors without sharing the project or a minimal example
that leads to the error.
Did you try to contact the Ontop people? They have Github
project and mailing list as well. And the FAQ  says what you
could try to do when your error message occurs
Error in connectionURL in OBDA file
OBDAException: There was an error analyzing the following mappings. Please correct the issue(s) to continue.
Error in mapping with id: ...
Description: Definition not found for table ...
=> Solution: correct the connectionURL in the
OBDA file. Go Back and try to Query again.
Just to add to what Lorenz said: the main goal of this list is to help people with specific questions or when they get unexpected behavior and think it might be a bug in Protege. The expectation is that people will come to the list after they have done a minimum amount of self teaching such as the Pizza tutorial (the Manchester FHKB tutorial is also excellent and I've written a short SWRL tutorial as well).
From my brief look at your screen prints I think you may not be grasping some of the basic concepts. Besides the issue I pointed out in my last email I also notice that in the image untitled5 you have the domain for a data property which is called hascalcium_mg defined as "hascalcium_mg some xsd:double". I would expect a definition like this to cause an error. I can't say if that is what is causing all your problems, my guess is it's not. But the domain for a property is meant to specify the kinds of things which that property can be asserted about. So for example the domain for an object property like hasChild could be Person because any Person could have a child. Defining the domain for a property using the name of that property itself makes no sense. The kind of statement you have there is the kind of thing you would use to define a class axiom. E.g., if you had a class called Neuron (which if I recall my Brain Science correctly releases calcium and potassium ions) you might make part of the definition for Neuron be "hascalcium_mg some xsd:double".
I also notice that in most of your screen snapshots in the bottom corner it says that the Reasoner has not yet been started. This could be a big part of your problem. I think it's a best practice (especially for new users) to run the Reasoner often. I usually run it almost every time I make a change to my ontology, even if it's a small change. The reason for doing that is one of the fundamental truths about software engineering: the sooner you find a problem the easier it is to fix it. If you run the Reasoner often then the first time you make a definition that is inconsistent you will get an error and you will immediately know that it was the last thing you did that caused the error. Also, the error message will tend to be more comprehensible.
If on the other hand you build lots of classes and properties and THEN run the reasoner the chances are you may have several problems so the error message may not be very helpful and it will be a lot harder to debug the ontology.
My advise is to do the Pizza tutorial or if you have done it, do it again and make sure you understand what a class is, what an object property is and what a data property is and what the domain and range for properties are. If you still don't understand those things after you do the Pizza tutorial then you can ask questions to clarify them here. Just to be clear: we want to help you but as Lorenz says we are all volunteers so we expect you to do some work as well.