|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I’m new in the ontology design and I come across the object
properties with multiple domains problem.
Here is a scenario:
I have three classes:
Car
Flower
Color
I created an object property “hasColor” with the
domains: Car and Flower; range is Color.
I create individuals “Porsche” type CAR, “Rose”
type Flower and “Red” type Color.
To the individuals “Porsche” and “Rose”
I add the hasColor property pointing to the same individual “Red”.
I run the inference engine (Pellet) and I noticed that the individual
“Porsche” is also of type Flower and “Rose” is also of
type Car.
My question: is there a way to define the hasColor property so
that it will not infer that “Porsche” is also a Flower and “Rose”
is also a Car?
Or do I need to define two different object properties
hasCarColor and hasFlowerColor that each have only one domain Car and Flower?
Also what are the common practices in ontology design regarding
multiple domains to a object property vs. multiple object properties with one
domain? For example: have a “hasName” property for each class like hasSchoolName,
hasAuthorName, hasCompanyName or have one property hasName and multiple domains:
School, Author, Company.
(I’m using Protégé v 4.0 Build 113)
Thank you,
Ado
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Hi Ado,
if you say that "hasColor" has domain Car *and* Flower, it means:
(1) hasColor has domain Car, i.e., every individual with a value for
"hasColor" has to be instance of Car and
(2) hasColor has domain Flower, i.e., every individual with a value
for "hasColor" has to be instance of Flower and
Therefore your individual "Porsche", which as a "hasColor" value, is
an instance of both classes.
What you want to say is probably that hasColor has domain "Car or
Flower", which you can do directly in the Protégé 4 interface.
Cheers
Thomas
On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:24, Adonis Damian wrote:
> Hi All,
> I’m new in the ontology design and I come across the object
> properties with multiple domains problem.
> Here is a scenario:
> I have three classes:
> Car
> Flower
> Color
> I created an object property “hasColor” with the domains: Car and
> Flower; range is Color.
> I create individuals “Porsche” type CAR, “Rose” type Flower and
> “Red” type Color.
> To the individuals “Porsche” and “Rose” I add the hasColor property
> pointing to the same individual “Red”.
> I run the inference engine (Pellet) and I noticed that the
> individual “Porsche” is also of type Flower and “Rose” is also of
> type Car.
>
> My question: is there a way to define the hasColor property so that
> it will not infer that “Porsche” is also a Flower and “Rose” is also
> a Car?
> Or do I need to define two different object properties hasCarColor
> and hasFlowerColor that each have only one domain Car and Flower?
> Also what are the common practices in ontology design regarding
> multiple domains to a object property vs. multiple object properties
> with one domain? For example: have a “hasName” property for each
> class like hasSchoolName, hasAuthorName, hasCompanyName or have one
> property hasName and multiple domains: School, Author, Company.
>
> (I’m using Protégé v 4.0 Build 113)
>
> Thank you,
> Ado
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt |
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester |
| Oxford Road _///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and
writer
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Thomas,
When the domain is "X or Y",
does the reasoner do anything with this information?
I have always assumed that this is not
very useful, except maybe for GUIs that may use domain information to determine
which properties to show for a class. Please correct me if this is
bad logic on my part.
Jim
| From:
| Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]>
|
| To:
| User support for the Protege-OWL editor
<[hidden email]>
|
| Date:
| 10/21/2009 03:50 AM
|
| Subject:
| Re: [protege-owl] object property with
multiple domains
|
| Sent by:
| [hidden email] |
Hi Ado,
if you say that "hasColor" has domain Car *and* Flower, it means:
(1) hasColor has domain Car, i.e., every individual with a value for
"hasColor" has to be instance of Car and
(2) hasColor has domain Flower, i.e., every individual with a value
for "hasColor" has to be instance of Flower and
Therefore your individual "Porsche", which as a "hasColor"
value, is
an instance of both classes.
What you want to say is probably that hasColor has domain "Car or
Flower", which you can do directly in the Protégé 4 interface.
Cheers
Thomas
On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:24, Adonis Damian wrote:
> Hi All,
> I’m new in the ontology design and I come across the object
> properties with multiple domains problem.
> Here is a scenario:
> I have three classes:
> Car
> Flower
> Color
> I created an object property “hasColor” with the domains: Car and
> Flower; range is Color.
> I create individuals “Porsche” type CAR, “Rose” type Flower
and
> “Red” type Color.
> To the individuals “Porsche” and “Rose” I add the hasColor property
> pointing to the same individual “Red”.
> I run the inference engine (Pellet) and I noticed that the
> individual “Porsche” is also of type Flower and “Rose” is also
of
> type Car.
>
> My question: is there a way to define the hasColor property so that
> it will not infer that “Porsche” is also a Flower and “Rose” is
also
> a Car?
> Or do I need to define two different object properties hasCarColor
> and hasFlowerColor that each have only one domain Car and Flower?
> Also what are the common practices in ontology design regarding
> multiple domains to a object property vs. multiple object properties
> with one domain? For example: have a “hasName” property for each
> class like hasSchoolName, hasAuthorName, hasCompanyName or have one
> property hasName and multiple domains: School, Author, Company.
>
> (I’m using Protégé v 4.0 Build 113)
>
> Thank you,
> Ado
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider
schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt
|
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114
phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester
|
| Oxford Road
_///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL
(o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English
judge and
writer
The following line is added for your protection and will be used for analysis
if this message is reported as spam: (Raytheon Analysis: IP=171.67.219.82;
e-from=[hidden email]; from=[hidden email];
date=Oct 21, 2009 7:43:22 AM; subject=Re: [protege-owl] object property
with multiple domains)[attachment "Thomas Schneider.vcf" deleted
by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
[attachment "PGP.sig" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
> When the domain is "X or Y", does the reasoner do anything with this
> information?
Absolutely. Make a test and try it out.
-Timothy
On Oct 21, 2009, at 6:42 AM, James A Miller wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> When the domain is "X or Y", does the reasoner do anything with this
> information?
>
> I have always assumed that this is not very useful, except maybe for
> GUIs that may use domain information to determine which properties
> to show for a class. Please correct me if this is bad logic on my
> part.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> From:
> Thomas Schneider < [hidden email]>
> To:
> User support for the Protege-OWL editor < [hidden email]
> >
> Date:
> 10/21/2009 03:50 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [protege-owl] object property with multiple domains
> Sent by:
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
> Hi Ado,
>
> if you say that "hasColor" has domain Car *and* Flower, it means:
>
> (1) hasColor has domain Car, i.e., every individual with a value for
> "hasColor" has to be instance of Car and
> (2) hasColor has domain Flower, i.e., every individual with a value
> for "hasColor" has to be instance of Flower and
>
> Therefore your individual "Porsche", which as a "hasColor" value, is
> an instance of both classes.
>
> What you want to say is probably that hasColor has domain "Car or
> Flower", which you can do directly in the Protégé 4 interface.
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas
>
> On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:24, Adonis Damian wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> > I’m new in the ontology design and I come across the object
> > properties with multiple domains problem.
> > Here is a scenario:
> > I have three classes:
> > Car
> > Flower
> > Color
> > I created an object property “hasColor” with the domains: Car and
> > Flower; range is Color.
> > I create individuals “Porsche” type CAR, “Rose” type Flower and
> > “Red” type Color.
> > To the individuals “Porsche” and “Rose” I add the hasColor property
> > pointing to the same individual “Red”.
> > I run the inference engine (Pellet) and I noticed that the
> > individual “Porsche” is also of type Flower and “Rose” is also of
> > type Car.
> >
> > My question: is there a way to define the hasColor property so that
> > it will not infer that “Porsche” is also a Flower and “Rose” is also
> > a Car?
> > Or do I need to define two different object properties hasCarColor
> > and hasFlowerColor that each have only one domain Car and Flower?
> > Also what are the common practices in ontology design regarding
> > multiple domains to a object property vs. multiple object properties
> > with one domain? For example: have a “hasName” property for each
> > class like hasSchoolName, hasAuthorName, hasCompanyName or have one
> > property hasName and multiple domains: School, Author, Company.
> >
> > (I’m using Protégé v 4.0 Build 113)
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ado
> > _______________________________________________
> > protege-owl mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl> >
> > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>
> +
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at)
> cs.man.ac.uk |
> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/
> ~schneidt |
> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161
> 2756136 |
> | University of
> Manchester |
> | Oxford Road _///
> _ |
> | Manchester M13 9PL
> (o~o) |
> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--
> OOOo--+
>
> The rain it raineth on the just
> And also on the unjust fella;
> But chiefly on the just, because
> The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
>
> Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and
> writer
>
>
> The following line is added for your protection and will be used for
> analysis if this message is reported as spam: (Raytheon Analysis:
> IP=171.67.219.82; e-from= [hidden email]; from= [hidden email]
> ; date=Oct 21, 2009 7:43:22 AM; subject=Re: [protege-owl] object
> property with multiple domains)[attachment "Thomas Schneider.vcf"
> deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
>
> [attachment "PGP.sig" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
On 21 Oct 2009, at 15:06, Timothy Redmond wrote:
>
>> When the domain is "X or Y", does the reasoner do anything with
>> this information?
>
> Absolutely. Make a test and try it out.
Whenever you are allowed to use arbitrary class expressions, the
reasoner will evaluate them. Saying that a property P has a domain "X
or Y" is the same as saying "P some Thing SubClassOf X or Y" -- and
why should this axiom be ignored while "P some Thing SubClassOf X"
isn't?
Thomas
>
> -Timothy
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 6:42 AM, James A Miller wrote:
>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> When the domain is "X or Y", does the reasoner do anything with
>> this information?
>>
>> I have always assumed that this is not very useful, except maybe
>> for GUIs that may use domain information to determine which
>> properties to show for a class. Please correct me if this is bad
>> logic on my part.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> Thomas Schneider < [hidden email]>
>> To:
>> User support for the Protege-OWL editor < [hidden email]
>> >
>> Date:
>> 10/21/2009 03:50 AM
>> Subject:
>> Re: [protege-owl] object property with multiple domains
>> Sent by:
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ado,
>>
>> if you say that "hasColor" has domain Car *and* Flower, it means:
>>
>> (1) hasColor has domain Car, i.e., every individual with a value for
>> "hasColor" has to be instance of Car and
>> (2) hasColor has domain Flower, i.e., every individual with a value
>> for "hasColor" has to be instance of Flower and
>>
>> Therefore your individual "Porsche", which as a "hasColor" value, is
>> an instance of both classes.
>>
>> What you want to say is probably that hasColor has domain "Car or
>> Flower", which you can do directly in the Protégé 4 interface.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:24, Adonis Damian wrote:
>>
>> > Hi All,
>> > I’m new in the ontology design and I come across the object
>> > properties with multiple domains problem.
>> > Here is a scenario:
>> > I have three classes:
>> > Car
>> > Flower
>> > Color
>> > I created an object property “hasColor” with the domains: Car and
>> > Flower; range is Color.
>> > I create individuals “Porsche” type CAR, “Rose” type Flower and
>> > “Red” type Color.
>> > To the individuals “Porsche” and “Rose” I add the hasColor property
>> > pointing to the same individual “Red”.
>> > I run the inference engine (Pellet) and I noticed that the
>> > individual “Porsche” is also of type Flower and “Rose” is also of
>> > type Car.
>> >
>> > My question: is there a way to define the hasColor property so that
>> > it will not infer that “Porsche” is also a Flower and “Rose” is
>> also
>> > a Car?
>> > Or do I need to define two different object properties hasCarColor
>> > and hasFlowerColor that each have only one domain Car and Flower?
>> > Also what are the common practices in ontology design regarding
>> > multiple domains to a object property vs. multiple object
>> properties
>> > with one domain? For example: have a “hasName” property for each
>> > class like hasSchoolName, hasAuthorName, hasCompanyName or have one
>> > property hasName and multiple domains: School, Author, Company.
>> >
>> > (I’m using Protégé v 4.0 Build 113)
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Ado
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > protege-owl mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>> >
>> > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>>
>> +
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at)
>> cs.man.ac.uk |
>> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/
>> ~schneidt |
>> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161
>> 2756136 |
>> | University of
>> Manchester |
>> | Oxford Road _///
>> _ |
>> | Manchester M13 9PL
>> (o~o) |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--
>> OOOo--+
>>
>> The rain it raineth on the just
>> And also on the unjust fella;
>> But chiefly on the just, because
>> The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
>>
>> Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and
>> writer
>>
>>
>> The following line is added for your protection and will be used
>> for analysis if this message is reported as spam: (Raytheon
>> Analysis: IP=171.67.219.82; e-from= [hidden email]
>> ; from= [hidden email]; date=Oct 21, 2009 7:43:22 AM;
>> subject=Re: [protege-owl] object property with multiple domains)
>> [attachment "Thomas Schneider.vcf" deleted by James A Miller/US/
>> Raytheon]
>>
>> [attachment "PGP.sig" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt |
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester |
| Oxford Road _///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and
writer
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Dear
I am using Protege 3.4.1, after building my Ontology and I try to use OntoViz to view the ontology i get an error message which reads as follows
"An error related to the DOT has occured. This error was probably because OWLViz could not find the DOT application. Please ensure that that the path to the DOT application is properly set"
The message occurs when I try to use the reasoner. I can only use Pellet for reasoning. What is this all about?
Juliet Gwenzi
ITC
Mailbox Number 389
Hengelosestraat 99
P. O. Box 6
7500 AA Enschede
The Netherlands
Mobile: +31 647 271 542
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more. _______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
You may choose to build and then interpret your Ontology any way
you choose. Your example is a common thing. In general, you are fine if you
make a conscious decision to do this.
The only place where you may have problems (that come to my
mind) involve a reasoner and an inconsistent Ontology; for example, if there is
some reason that your blue thing cannot be both a flower and a car.
That said, it is not overly difficult to recognize that the
domain is built from the union of Car and Flower as opposed to stating that it
is a Car and a Flower.
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James A
Miller
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:43 AM
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] object property with multiple domains
Thomas,
When the domain
is "X or Y", does the reasoner do anything with this information?
I have always
assumed that this is not very useful, except maybe for GUIs that may use domain
information to determine which properties to show for a class. Please
correct me if this is bad logic on my part.
Jim
|
From:
|
Thomas
Schneider <[hidden email]>
|
|
To:
|
User
support for the Protege-OWL editor <[hidden email]>
|
|
Date:
|
10/21/2009
03:50 AM
|
|
Subject:
|
Re:
[protege-owl] object property with multiple domains
|
|
Sent by:
|
[hidden email]
|
Hi Ado,
if you say that "hasColor" has domain Car *and* Flower, it means:
(1) hasColor has domain Car, i.e., every individual with a value for
"hasColor" has to be instance of Car and
(2) hasColor has domain Flower, i.e., every individual with a value
for "hasColor" has to be instance of Flower and
Therefore your individual "Porsche", which as a
"hasColor" value, is
an instance of both classes.
What you want to say is probably that hasColor has domain "Car or
Flower", which you can do directly in the Protégé 4 interface.
Cheers
Thomas
On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:24, Adonis Damian wrote:
> Hi All,
> I’m new in the ontology design and I come across the object
> properties with multiple domains problem.
> Here is a scenario:
> I have three classes:
> Car
> Flower
> Color
> I created an object property “hasColor” with the domains: Car and
> Flower; range is Color.
> I create individuals “Porsche” type CAR, “Rose” type Flower and
> “Red” type Color.
> To the individuals “Porsche” and “Rose” I add the hasColor property
> pointing to the same individual “Red”.
> I run the inference engine (Pellet) and I noticed that the
> individual “Porsche” is also of type Flower and “Rose” is also of
> type Car.
>
> My question: is there a way to define the hasColor property so that
> it will not infer that “Porsche” is also a Flower and “Rose” is also
> a Car?
> Or do I need to define two different object properties hasCarColor
> and hasFlowerColor that each have only one domain Car and Flower?
> Also what are the common practices in ontology design regarding
> multiple domains to a object property vs. multiple object properties
> with one domain? For example: have a “hasName” property for each
> class like hasSchoolName, hasAuthorName, hasCompanyName or have one
> property hasName and multiple domains: School, Author, Company.
>
> (I’m using Protégé v 4.0 Build 113)
>
> Thank you,
> Ado
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider
schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt |
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114
phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester
|
| Oxford Road
_///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL
(o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English
judge and
writer
The following line is added for your protection and will be used for
analysis if this message is reported as spam: (Raytheon Analysis:
IP=171.67.219.82; e-from=[hidden email];
from=[hidden email]; date=Oct 21, 2009 7:43:22 AM; subject=Re:
[protege-owl] object property with multiple domains)[attachment "Thomas
Schneider.vcf" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
[attachment "PGP.sig" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Thanks for the guidance, but I'm missing
something.
I created 2 subclasses of Thing: Thing_1
and Thing_2.
I created an ObjectProperty, with domain
"Thing_1 or Thing_2", named "prop".
I created 2 individuals of type Thing,
called inst_1 and inst_2.
For inst_1, I added prop with object
inst_2.
I ran Pellet, and I got no applicable
inferences. (I tried again with a different reasoner, still nothing).
What should I see?
Is this an inappropriate test, or am
I doing something wrong?
Jim
On 21 Oct 2009, at 15:06, Timothy Redmond wrote:
>
>> When the domain is "X or Y", does the reasoner do anything
with
>> this information?
>
> Absolutely. Make a test and try it out.
Whenever you are allowed to use arbitrary class expressions, the
reasoner will evaluate them. Saying that a property P has a domain "X
or Y" is the same as saying "P some Thing SubClassOf X or Y"
-- and
why should this axiom be ignored while "P some Thing SubClassOf X"
isn't?
Thomas
>
> -Timothy
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 6:42 AM, James A Miller wrote:
>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> When the domain is "X or Y", does the reasoner do anything
with
>> this information?
>>
>> I have always assumed that this is not very useful, except maybe
>> for GUIs that may use domain information to determine which
>> properties to show for a class. Please correct me if this
is bad
>> logic on my part.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]>
>> To:
>> User support for the Protege-OWL editor <[hidden email]
>> >
>> Date:
>> 10/21/2009 03:50 AM
>> Subject:
>> Re: [protege-owl] object property with multiple domains
>> Sent by:
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ado,
>>
>> if you say that "hasColor" has domain Car *and* Flower,
it means:
>>
>> (1) hasColor has domain Car, i.e., every individual with a value
for
>> "hasColor" has to be instance of Car and
>> (2) hasColor has domain Flower, i.e., every individual with a
value
>> for "hasColor" has to be instance of Flower and
>>
>> Therefore your individual "Porsche", which as a "hasColor"
value, is
>> an instance of both classes.
>>
>> What you want to say is probably that hasColor has domain "Car
or
>> Flower", which you can do directly in the Protégé 4 interface.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:24, Adonis Damian wrote:
>>
>> > Hi All,
>> > I’m new in the ontology design and I come across the object
>> > properties with multiple domains problem.
>> > Here is a scenario:
>> > I have three classes:
>> > Car
>> > Flower
>> > Color
>> > I created an object property “hasColor” with the domains:
Car and
>> > Flower; range is Color.
>> > I create individuals “Porsche” type CAR, “Rose”
type Flower and
>> > “Red” type Color.
>> > To the individuals “Porsche” and “Rose” I add the hasColor
property
>> > pointing to the same individual “Red”.
>> > I run the inference engine (Pellet) and I noticed that the
>> > individual “Porsche” is also of type Flower and “Rose”
is also of
>> > type Car.
>> >
>> > My question: is there a way to define the hasColor property
so that
>> > it will not infer that “Porsche” is also a Flower and “Rose”
is
>> also
>> > a Car?
>> > Or do I need to define two different object properties hasCarColor
>> > and hasFlowerColor that each have only one domain Car and
Flower?
>> > Also what are the common practices in ontology design regarding
>> > multiple domains to a object property vs. multiple object
>> properties
>> > with one domain? For example: have a “hasName” property
for each
>> > class like hasSchoolName, hasAuthorName, hasCompanyName or
have one
>> > property hasName and multiple domains: School, Author, Company.
>> >
>> > (I’m using Protégé v 4.0 Build 113)
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Ado
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > protege-owl mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>> >
>> > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>>
>> +
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | Dr Thomas Schneider
schneider (at)
>> cs.man.ac.uk |
>> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/
>> ~schneidt |
>> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114
phone +44 161
>> 2756136 |
>> | University of
>> Manchester
|
>> | Oxford Road
_///
>> _ |
>> | Manchester M13 9PL
>> (o~o) |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--
>> OOOo--+
>>
>> The rain it raineth on the just
>> And also on the unjust fella;
>> But chiefly on the just, because
>> The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
>>
>> Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894),
English judge and
>> writer
>>
>>
>> The following line is added for your protection and will be used
>> for analysis if this message is reported as spam: (Raytheon
>> Analysis: IP=171.67.219.82; e-from=[hidden email]
>> ; from=[hidden email]; date=Oct 21, 2009 7:43:22 AM;
>> subject=Re: [protege-owl] object property with multiple domains)
>> [attachment "Thomas Schneider.vcf" deleted by James
A Miller/US/
>> Raytheon]
>>
>> [attachment "PGP.sig" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider
schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt
|
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114
phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester
|
| Oxford Road
_///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL
(o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English
judge and
writer
The following line is added for your protection and will be used for analysis
if this message is reported as spam: (Raytheon Analysis: IP=171.67.219.81;
e-from=[hidden email]; from=[hidden email];
date=Oct 21, 2009 2:17:56 PM; subject=Re: [protege-owl] object property
with multiple domains)[attachment "Thomas Schneider.vcf" deleted
by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
[attachment "PGP.sig" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Juliet Gwenzi wrote:
> Dear
> I am using Protege 3.4.1, after building my Ontology and I try to
> use OntoViz to view the ontology i get an error message which reads
> as follows
> "An error related to the DOT has occured. This error was probably
> because OWLViz could not find the DOT application. Please ensure
> that that the path to the DOT application is properly set"
>
> The message occurs when I try to use the reasoner. I can only use
> Pellet for reasoning. What is this all about?
OK, your report is confusing.
First you say that you get the error message when trying to use
OntoViz. This is what I would expect. It means that you either do
not have GraphViz installed (which provides the "dot" program), or
else it is installed, but you do not have OntoViz properly configured
to know where you have installed GraphViz and the dot program.
Later, you say it occurs when you try to use the reasoner. I don't
see how the reasoner interacts with dot in any way.
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:52 AM, James A Miller wrote:
> Thanks for the guidance, but I'm missing something.
>
> I created 2 subclasses of Thing: Thing_1 and Thing_2.
> I created an ObjectProperty, with domain "Thing_1 or Thing_2", named
> "prop".
> I created 2 individuals of type Thing, called inst_1 and inst_2.
> For inst_1, I added prop with object inst_2.
>
> I ran Pellet, and I got no applicable inferences. (I tried again
> with a different reasoner, still nothing). What should I see?
>
> Is this an inappropriate test, or am I doing something wrong?
No, this is what you should expect.
As your initial question indicated, using a disjunctive domain is a
much weaker constraint and therefore doesn't provide you with quite as
much in the way of direct inferences. But there are inferences which
are available.
For example, if you have the following more elaborate model, then some
interesting things may begin happening:
Top
A
A1
A2
A3
B
Property P domain (A1 or A2)
Individuals i_1, i_2
If you assert "i_1 P i_2" then the following inferences are available:
i_1 type A
Furthermore, if you were to assert
i_1 type (complement A2)
then a reasoner can conclude
i_1 type A1
because i_1 must be an A1 or an A2 [or both, unless they are
disjoint], and since it isn't an A2 it must be an A1.
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
On 21 Oct 2009, at 18:02, Thomas Russ wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:52 AM, James A Miller wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the guidance, but I'm missing something.
>>
>> I created 2 subclasses of Thing: Thing_1 and Thing_2.
>> I created an ObjectProperty, with domain "Thing_1 or Thing_2",
>> named "prop".
>> I created 2 individuals of type Thing, called inst_1 and inst_2.
>> For inst_1, I added prop with object inst_2.
>>
>> I ran Pellet, and I got no applicable inferences. (I tried again
>> with a different reasoner, still nothing). What should I see?
>>
>> Is this an inappropriate test, or am I doing something wrong?
And in this example, if you ask for members of the class "Thing_1 or
Thing_2", you should get inst_1. (Just try it out.)
Please don't be confused that it doesn't work the other way round --
i.e. "Thing_1 or Thing_2" isn't shown as a type of inst_1. This is
simply because there are infinitely many class expressions, so the
reasoners usually test for *named* classes when asked for types (or
subclasses, superclasses, etc.).
Cheers
Thomas
>
> No, this is what you should expect.
>
> As your initial question indicated, using a disjunctive domain is a
> much weaker constraint and therefore doesn't provide you with quite
> as much in the way of direct inferences. But there are inferences
> which are available.
>
> For example, if you have the following more elaborate model, then
> some interesting things may begin happening:
>
>
> Top
> A
> A1
> A2
> A3
> B
>
> Property P domain (A1 or A2)
>
> Individuals i_1, i_2
>
> If you assert "i_1 P i_2" then the following inferences are available:
>
> i_1 type A
>
> Furthermore, if you were to assert
>
> i_1 type (complement A2)
>
> then a reasoner can conclude
>
> i_1 type A1
>
> because i_1 must be an A1 or an A2 [or both, unless they are
> disjoint], and since it isn't an A2 it must be an A1.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt |
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester |
| Oxford Road _///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and
writer
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
OK, I see.. Thank you!
Jim
| From:
| Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]>
|
| To:
| User support for the Protege-OWL editor
<[hidden email]>
|
| Date:
| 10/21/2009 01:13 PM
|
| Subject:
| Re: [protege-owl] object property with
multiple domains
|
| Sent by:
| [hidden email] |
On 21 Oct 2009, at 18:02, Thomas Russ wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:52 AM, James A Miller wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the guidance, but I'm missing something.
>>
>> I created 2 subclasses of Thing: Thing_1 and Thing_2.
>> I created an ObjectProperty, with domain "Thing_1 or Thing_2",
>> named "prop".
>> I created 2 individuals of type Thing, called inst_1 and inst_2.
>> For inst_1, I added prop with object inst_2.
>>
>> I ran Pellet, and I got no applicable inferences. (I tried
again
>> with a different reasoner, still nothing). What should I
see?
>>
>> Is this an inappropriate test, or am I doing something wrong?
And in this example, if you ask for members of the class "Thing_1
or
Thing_2", you should get inst_1. (Just try it out.)
Please don't be confused that it doesn't work the other way round --
i.e. "Thing_1 or Thing_2" isn't shown as a type of inst_1. This
is
simply because there are infinitely many class expressions, so the
reasoners usually test for *named* classes when asked for types (or
subclasses, superclasses, etc.).
Cheers
Thomas
>
> No, this is what you should expect.
>
> As your initial question indicated, using a disjunctive domain is
a
> much weaker constraint and therefore doesn't provide you with quite
> as much in the way of direct inferences. But there are inferences
> which are available.
>
> For example, if you have the following more elaborate model, then
> some interesting things may begin happening:
>
>
> Top
> A
> A1
> A2
> A3
> B
>
> Property P domain (A1 or A2)
>
> Individuals i_1, i_2
>
> If you assert "i_1 P i_2" then the following inferences
are available:
>
> i_1 type A
>
> Furthermore, if you were to assert
>
> i_1 type (complement A2)
>
> then a reasoner can conclude
>
> i_1 type A1
>
> because i_1 must be an A1 or an A2 [or both, unless they are
> disjoint], and since it isn't an A2 it must be an A1.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider
schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt
|
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114
phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester
|
| Oxford Road
_///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL
(o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English
judge and
writer
[attachment "Thomas Schneider.vcf" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
[attachment "PGP.sig" deleted by James A Miller/US/Raytheon]
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Thank you, Thomas--
I had not considered the 'A' class situation
(from your example). Now the benefit is very clear to me.
Jim
| From:
| Thomas Russ <[hidden email]>
|
| To:
| User support for the Protege-OWL editor
<[hidden email]>
|
| Date:
| 10/21/2009 01:23 PM
|
| Subject:
| Re: [protege-owl] object property with
multiple domains
|
| Sent by:
| [hidden email] |
On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:52 AM, James A Miller wrote:
> Thanks for the guidance, but I'm missing something.
>
> I created 2 subclasses of Thing: Thing_1 and Thing_2.
> I created an ObjectProperty, with domain "Thing_1 or Thing_2",
named
> "prop".
> I created 2 individuals of type Thing, called inst_1 and inst_2.
> For inst_1, I added prop with object inst_2.
>
> I ran Pellet, and I got no applicable inferences. (I tried again
> with a different reasoner, still nothing). What should I see?
>
> Is this an inappropriate test, or am I doing something wrong?
No, this is what you should expect.
As your initial question indicated, using a disjunctive domain is a
much weaker constraint and therefore doesn't provide you with quite as
much in the way of direct inferences. But there are inferences which
are available.
For example, if you have the following more elaborate model, then some
interesting things may begin happening:
Top
A
A1
A2
A3
B
Property P domain (A1 or A2)
Individuals i_1, i_2
If you assert "i_1 P i_2" then the following inferences are available:
i_1 type A
Furthermore, if you were to assert
i_1 type (complement A2)
then a reasoner can conclude
i_1 type A1
because i_1 must be an A1 or an A2 [or both, unless they are
disjoint], and since it isn't an A2 it must be an A1.
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Thank you Thomas. That solved my problem.
How about best practices? To have an object property with multiple domains
(with "or" between) and same range vs. multiple object properties each with
different domains and the same range.
Thanks,
Ado
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto: [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas
Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:43 AM
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] object property with multiple domains
Hi Ado,
if you say that "hasColor" has domain Car *and* Flower, it means:
(1) hasColor has domain Car, i.e., every individual with a value for
"hasColor" has to be instance of Car and
(2) hasColor has domain Flower, i.e., every individual with a value for
"hasColor" has to be instance of Flower and
Therefore your individual "Porsche", which as a "hasColor" value, is an
instance of both classes.
What you want to say is probably that hasColor has domain "Car or Flower",
which you can do directly in the Protégé 4 interface.
Cheers
Thomas
On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:24, Adonis Damian wrote:
> Hi All,
> Im new in the ontology design and I come across the object properties
> with multiple domains problem.
> Here is a scenario:
> I have three classes:
> Car
> Flower
> Color
> I created an object property hasColor with the domains: Car and
> Flower; range is Color.
> I create individuals Porsche type CAR, Rose type Flower and Red
> type Color.
> To the individuals Porsche and Rose I add the hasColor property
> pointing to the same individual Red.
> I run the inference engine (Pellet) and I noticed that the individual
> Porsche is also of type Flower and Rose is also of type Car.
>
> My question: is there a way to define the hasColor property so that it
> will not infer that Porsche is also a Flower and Rose is also a
> Car?
> Or do I need to define two different object properties hasCarColor and
> hasFlowerColor that each have only one domain Car and Flower?
> Also what are the common practices in ontology design regarding
> multiple domains to a object property vs. multiple object properties
> with one domain? For example: have a hasName property for each class
> like hasSchoolName, hasAuthorName, hasCompanyName or have one property
> hasName and multiple domains: School, Author, Company.
>
> (Im using Protégé v 4.0 Build 113)
>
> Thank you,
> Ado
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt |
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester |
| Oxford Road _///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and writer
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
Dear all
I actually mixed up the terms, actually its when trying to configure the OWLviz tab thats when I get the error. Now i have ready from documentation thatthe Graphviz should have the path C:Program Files\ATT\Graphviz. I downloaded the graphviz and when trying to Install i gt this error
"A network error occured while attempting to read from the file location C:Program Files\ATT\Graphviz-2.24.msi" what cou be the problem
Regards
Juliet Gwenzi
ITC
Mailbox Number 389
Hengelosestraat 99
P. O. Box 6
7500 AA Enschede
The Netherlands
Mobile: +31 647 271 542
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more. _______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
On 21 Oct 2009, at 21:36, Juliet Gwenzi wrote:
> Dear all
> I actually mixed up the terms, actually its when trying to configure
> the OWLviz tab thats when I get the error. Now i have ready from
> documentation thatthe Graphviz should have the path C:Program Files
> \ATT\Graphviz. I downloaded the graphviz and when trying to Install
> i gt this error
>
> "A network error occured while attempting to read from the file
> location C:Program Files\ATT\Graphviz-2.24.msi" what cou be the
> problem
Perhaps a missing backslash after "C:"?
Thomas
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk |
| School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt |
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 |
| University of Manchester |
| Oxford Road _///_ |
| Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella.
Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and
writer
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
The backslash is there in the path but still i am failing to fix the problem. The error remains the same
Juliet Gwenzi
ITC
Mailbox Number 389
Hengelosestraat 99
P. O. Box 6
7500 AA Enschede
The Netherlands
Mobile: +31 647 271 542
Becoming like Jesus is a marathon not a sprint
From: Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]>
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wed, 21 October, 2009 11:07:44 PM
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] DOT file problem
On 21 Oct 2009, at 21:36, Juliet Gwenzi wrote: > Dear all > I actually mixed up the terms, actually its when trying to configure the OWLviz tab thats when I get the error. Now i have ready from documentation thatthe Graphviz should have the path C:Program Files\ATT\Graphviz. I downloaded the graphviz and when trying to Install i gt this error > > "A network error occured while attempting to read from the file location C:Program Files\ATT\Graphviz-2.24.msi" what cou be the problem Perhaps a
missing backslash after "C:"? Thomas +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk | | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt | | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 | | University of Manchester
| | Oxford Road _///_ | | Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) | +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+ The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella; But chiefly on the just, because The unjust steals the just's umbrella. Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and writer
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more. _______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
try to install the program from some other location ... I just download the software 2 days ago . and it is working fine in windows environment ... On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Juliet Gwenzi <[hidden email]> wrote:
The backslash is there in the path but still i am failing to fix the problem. The error remains the same
Juliet Gwenzi
ITC
Mailbox Number 389
Hengelosestraat 99
P. O. Box 6
7500 AA Enschede
The Netherlands
Mobile: +31 647 271 542
Becoming like Jesus is a marathon not a sprint
From: Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]>
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wed, 21 October, 2009 11:07:44 PM
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] DOT file problem
On 21 Oct 2009, at 21:36, Juliet Gwenzi wrote: > Dear all > I actually mixed up the terms, actually its when trying to configure the OWLviz tab thats when I get the error. Now i have ready from documentation thatthe Graphviz should have the path C:Program Files\ATT\Graphviz. I downloaded the graphviz and when trying to Install i gt this error
> > "A network error occured while attempting to read from the file location C:Program Files\ATT\Graphviz-2.24.msi" what cou be the problem Perhaps a
missing backslash after "C:"? Thomas > > Regards > > Juliet Gwenzi > ITC > Mailbox Number 389 > Hengelosestraat 99 > P. O. Box 6 > 7500 AA Enschede
> The Netherlands > > Mobile: +31 647 271 542 > Land +31 534 803 999 > Email: [hidden email]> [hidden email]
> > > > Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more._______________________________________________ > protege-owl mailing list > [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl> > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk | | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt |
| Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 | | University of Manchester
| | Oxford Road _///_ | | Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) | +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+
The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella; But chiefly on the just, because The unjust steals the just's umbrella. Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen (1835-1894), English judge and writer
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more.
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
Locked
Thomas Schneider.vcf (44K)