Property restrictions

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

Property restrictions

Joachim Baran
Hello, again,

  I have another stupid question:

  I try to restrict some object/datatype properties to occur only a certain number of times per feature. So, I added to my "Feature" superclass the restriction "strand exactly 1 Strand". However, when I tried to test this restriction by creating an individual of "Feature" that has more than two "strand" object properties, I still get no inconsistency reported.

  Is this a limitation of the reasoner (I am using HermiT 1.3.6)?

  I also tried Pellet, which gives me a "null" exception, and FaCT complains that I use the datatype owl:real. RacerPro, like HermiT, does not report an inconsistency either.

Thanks,
Joachim

_______________________________________________
protege-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Property restrictions

Matthew Horridge
>
>  I try to restrict some object/datatype properties to occur only a certain number of times per feature. So, I added to my "Feature" superclass the restriction "strand exactly 1 Strand". However, when I tried to test this restriction by creating an individual of "Feature" that has more than two "strand" object properties, I still get no inconsistency reported.
>
>  Is this a limitation of the reasoner (I am using HermiT 1.3.6)?

No.  

There's a couple of things.  Although you say there can be at most one stand property to an individual that is a Strand this doesn't mean that it isn't possible to have another stand property to something that isn't an instance of Strand.  However, if both of the individuals are indeed instances to Strands then if there isn't anything that forces them to be distinct individuals (either explicitly or implicitly) then they will be interpreted to be the same object since there can be at most one.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Matthew

_______________________________________________
protege-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Property restrictions

Joachim Baran
Hello,

On 2012-10-17, at 1:01 AM, Matthew Horridge <[hidden email]> wrote:.  
> There's a couple of things.  Although you say there can be at most one stand property to an individual that is a Strand this doesn't mean that it isn't possible to have another stand property to something that isn't an instance of Strand.  However, if both of the individuals are indeed instances to Strands then if there isn't anything that forces them to be distinct individuals (either explicitly or implicitly) then they will be interpreted to be the same object since there can be at most one.
  I understand. I had expected that declaring the individuals of Strand to be distinct would have been sufficient. So, there is no other way than using enumeration classes to solve this?
>

Thank you,
Joachim
_______________________________________________
protege-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion

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