Missing axioms in the view

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Missing axioms in the view

Timothy Redmond

Cool!   A  KAoS ontology.  I worked  with KAoS a long time ago...

I don't know what happened  to your message but here is an answer.

This is an owl  api issue.  I will post a message  to the owl api developers group and see what they say.

However you are doing something a little strange here and this is what is giving you trouble.  The restrictions in the ontology you sent are named:

     <owl:Restriction rdf:about="<a href="urn:KAoS">urn:KAoS#AddPolicyAction-Subclass-For-Policy-40d7d633-0118-0000-8000-0000aabbccdd-For-Property-ControlRestriction1">
       <owl:onProperty>
         <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://ontology.ihmc.us/PolicyAction.owl#involvedPolicy"/>
       </owl:onProperty>
       <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://ontology.ihmc.us/Policy.owl#PosObligationPolicy"/>
       </owl:Restriction>

Presumably what is intended here is that this creates a named class that is equivalent to a restriction.  But as you said, the owl api, sees that this class is named and then seems to ignore the  restriction predicates.

I am not sure if the owl api  is wrong in doing this.   It seems like it probably should not behave this way. But I will say  this construct seems suspect to me and will probably give many  tools a problem.  Interestingly Protege 3 does the opposite.  It sees the restrictions but seems to forget the name.

-Timothy


_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Missing axioms in the view

Matthew Horridge
Hi,

As far as I know, this isn't valid OWL.  Nodes that are typed as  
restrictions should be anonymous nodes.  You need to specify that it  
is equivalent to, or a subclass of (or a disjoint with) the named OWL  
class <AddPolicyAction-Subclass-For-
Policy-40d7d633-0118-0000-8000-0000aabbccdd-For-Property-
ControlRestriction1>.

How did you create this RDF?

Cheers,

Matthew


On 28 Jul 2008, at 19:23, Timothy Redmond wrote:

>
> Cool!   A  KAoS ontology.  I worked  with KAoS a long time ago...
>
> I don't know what happened  to your message but here is an answer.
>
> This is an owl  api issue.  I will post a message  to the owl api  
> developers group and see what they say.
>
> However you are doing something a little strange here and this is  
> what is giving you trouble.  The restrictions in the ontology you  
> sent are named:
>
>      <owl:Restriction rdf:about="urn:KAoS#AddPolicyAction-Subclass-
> For-Policy-40d7d633-0118-0000-8000-0000aabbccdd-For-Property-
> ControlRestriction1">
>        <owl:onProperty>
>          <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://ontology.ihmc.us/PolicyAction.owl#involvedPolicy 
> "/>
>        </owl:onProperty>
>        <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://ontology.ihmc.us/Policy.owl#PosObligationPolicy 
> "/>
>        </owl:Restriction>
>
> Presumably what is intended here is that this creates a named class  
> that is equivalent to a restriction.  But as you said, the owl api,  
> sees that this class is named and then seems to ignore the  
> restriction predicates.
>
> I am not sure if the owl api  is wrong in doing this.   It seems  
> like it probably should not behave this way. But I will say  this  
> construct seems suspect to me and will probably give many  tools a  
> problem.  Interestingly Protege 3 does the opposite.  It sees the  
> restrictions but seems to forget the name.
>
> -Timothy
>
> _______________________________________________
> p4-feedback mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback

_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Missing axioms in the view

portas
Hi Matthew, Timothy


I agree, I think it is not a valid OWL as well but two rather suspicious
facts (as already pointed by Timothy) made me share the issue with You,

    1) when parsing in P4, build 64, no error is generated, the ontology
is parsed and rendered WITHOUT the restrictions

    2) when parsing in P3.4 beta, no error is generated, the ontology is
parsed and rendered WITH the restrictions


The OWL piece was generated by KPAT v.2.0.


Cheers,
Petr
_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Missing axioms in the view

Matthew Horridge
Hi Petr,

> I agree, I think it is not a valid OWL as well but two rather  
> suspicious
> facts (as already pointed by Timothy) made me share the issue with  
> You,
>
>    1) when parsing in P4, build 64, no error is generated, the  
> ontology
> is parsed and rendered WITHOUT the restrictions
>
>    2) when parsing in P3.4 beta, no error is generated, the ontology  
> is
> parsed and rendered WITH the restrictions

Well, I suppose both tools try to do some patching.  We originally had  
the parser in a strict mode in the OWL API (and hence P4) but this  
seemed more problematic for many users.  I'll add some functionality  
into the OWL API so that these errors can be retrieved after parsing.

> The OWL piece was generated by KPAT v.2.0.


o.k. I don't know anything about this tool, but it may be worth  
discussing this problem with the appropriate people.

Cheers,

Matthew
_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback