[Pellet-users] species validator bug

[Evren Sirin]

On 3/31/07 12:17 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Shouldn't this ontology be considered OWL-Full (and be inconsistent?)
> In both pellet 1.3 and 1.4 it is said to be OWL-Lite.
> Pellet 1.4 prints a console warning:
> WARN [main] (OWLLoader.java:330) - Ignoring transitivity axiom due to  
> an existing cardinality restriction for property http://example.com/#foo
> Both say it is consistent.
>   
Yes. As the warning message says the transitivity axiom is ignored and 
what remains is consistent.
> I think the species validator should at least say it is OWL-Full.
>   
Yes. We hope to completely revamp the species validator one day.
> Then we won't be surprised that the reasoner is not sound (no  
> guarantees for OWL-Full)
>   
Most of the time, we need even more than that because some OWL-Full 
ontologies (e.g. the ones that are OWL-DL except missing rdf:type 
triples) are completely harmless and we can expect sound results for 
them. For others (e.g. this example) we need some way of telling the 
user that something is not right. The warning message was added for this 
purpose.

Cheers,
Evren
> Namespace(ex = <http://example.com/#>)
> Ontology(<http://example.com/#>
> ObjectProperty(ex:foo Transitive )
> ObjectProperty(ex:foo Functional )
> ObjectProperty(ex:foo Symmetric )
> ObjectProperty(ex:foo inverseOf(ex:foo ))
> DifferentIndividuals(ex:a ex:b )
> Individual(ex:a value(ex:foo ex:b ))
> )
>
> -Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pellet-users mailing list
> Pellet-users at lists.owldl.com
> http://lists.owldl.com/mailman/listinfo/pellet-users
> _______________________________________________
>
> Sponsored by Clark & Parsia, LLC http://clarkparsia.com/
>