"DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class.

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

"DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class.

mpuebla


 Hello:

I have a modeling doubt.

I want to specify that a class in my ontology has a set of data properties whose values are not repeated only for that class.

"DisjointDataProperties allows it to be asserted that several data properties are pairwise incompatible (exclusive)." However, this will be true for all classes of my ontology that use the data properties specified as disjoint. I need the restriction to apply only to one class and not all. How can I model this in OWL2?

Best Regards, Manuel Puebla.
La @universidad_uci es Fidel. Los jóvenes no fallaremos.
#HastaSiempreComandante
#HastalaVictoriaSiempre
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "DisjointDataProperties" only for the data properties of a class.

samsontu

On May 17, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Manuel Enrique Puebla Martinez <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have a modeling doubt.

I want to specify that a class in my ontology has a set of data properties whose values are not repeated only for that class.

"DisjointDataProperties allows it to be asserted that several data properties are pairwise incompatible (exclusive)." However, this will be true for all classes of my ontology that use the data properties specified as disjoint. I need the restriction to apply only to one class and not all. How can I model this in OWL2?


One possibility is to write a rule: ExampleClass(?i), p1(?i, ?v), p2(?i, ?v) -> owl:Nothing(?i), where p1 and p2 have been defined as data properties.

Interestingly, different reasoners behave differently when there is an instance that have a common value for the two properties. Pellet throws an inconsistent ontology error. Hermit displays a dialog box and offers to give explanation for the inconsistent ontology. FaCT++ shows nothing, but a DL query of ExampleClass shows that it is a subclass of owl:Nothing.

With best regards,
Samson

-- 
Samson Tu                                                      email: [hidden email]
Senior Research Engineer                              web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
Center for Biomedical Informatics Research  phone: 1-650-725-3391
Stanford University                                          fax: 1-650-725-7944




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