-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

Hi,

have you tried to set the classes pairwise disjoint? This is needed, if

a reasoner can find some inconsistencies in the instance data.

Regards,

Lorenz

On 15.11.2012 14:13, Artur Caetano wrote:

> Hello!

>

> There are some threads on this topic but I have been unable to apply the

> proposed solutions to the problem I'm describing here. I am trying to use

> OWL to check the consistency of models against a set of rules. The

problem I

> have is that different classes relate through the same set of

relationships.

> Consider the following scenario:

>

> There are three classes: ClassA, ClassB, ClassC

>

> There are two possible (binary) relationships: R1, R2

>

> Now let's consider that the following restrictions apply:

> ClassA ---> R1 ---> [0..*] ClassA

> ClassA ---> R1 ---> [0..*] ClassB

> ClassB ---> R1 ---> [0..*] ClassC

>

> ClassB ---> R2 ---> [0..*] ClassB

> ClassB ---> R2 ---> [0..*] ClassC

> ClassC ---> R2 ---> [0..*] ClassC

>

> For example:

> - ClassA ---> R1 ---> [0..*] ClassB means that individuals of classA may

> relate to zero or more ClassB via R1.

>

> - ClassB ---> R2 ---> [0..*] ClassB means that individuals of ClassB may

> relate to individuals of ClassB via R2.

>

> Examples of violations of the above rules are:

> - an individual of ClassA relates to ClassC via R1

> - an individual of ClassA relates to ClassB via R2

>

> BTW, note that I am using 0..* cardinality for the sake of simplicity but

> there will be rules with different cardinalities.

>

> What is the best way to represent this in OWL 2 (in Protege 4.x)? I am

> currently trying to state that each class has a set of super-classes that

> restrict the possible relationships as follows:

>

> ClassA

> superclasses

> R1 only (ClassA or ClassB or ClassC)

>

> ClassB

> superclasses

> R1 only (ClassC)

> R2 only (ClassB or ClassC)

>

> ClassC

> superclasses

> R2 only (ClassC)

>

> I have also tried combining some (existential) and only (universal)

> restricitions , e.g.

>

> ClassA

> superclasses

> R1 some ClassA

> R1 some ClassB

> R1 some ClassC

> R1 only (ClassA or ClassB or ClassC)

>

>

> However, it seems the reasoner is not correctly considering the rules

above

> and does not detect any kind of violations nor does it correctly classify

> the individuals.

>

> Can you please provide me some insights on how to model this scenario?

>

>

> Thanks in advance,

> Artur Caetano

>

>

>

> --

> View this message in context:

http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/Multiple-domain-ranges-for-the-same-OWL-properties-tp4656655.html> Sent from the Protege-OWL 4.x Support mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

> _______________________________________________

> p4-feedback mailing list

>

[hidden email]
>

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

http://www.enigmail.net/iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQpQj7AAoJEI97YhPimK8y0MUIAIxEooQCxuXAGJxhDRWEcFM7

qWpKFv4TBbsGl+10SsVg8FyOUG3EO+YADnd2h5HVmIunBS5d0TwqVaZNDB6OxCSu

84XTZslg5/QdDLjuLnN8aWqYnUi0O/3BVZuy/V9K/7LxhEkwfkPDjzMRkl0WNP1N

7WsKqTnH0O2thPH1/Pw2A4IvVJJF8Qo6s0xt6qTqZiQIlPiwhSj7rB9HDleKwGZY

8hn1w/vQb6YB8ri41diP4y4myTZ4KmvoBqqSNn3hm2KLD/sFYkHPrb3qSOkD8Z/a

taRr4VHY9dNfg5J3AtUe5afAyAaEkj6mibZdVLqDo957cKW9I2LBus9VEs63hp8=

=TYZH

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________

p4-feedback mailing list

[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback