[Pellet-users] Pellet validator and datatype properties

[Cartik Saravana Muthu]

That's good news! I am using the demo version of the Pellet validator online
at

http://www.mindswap.org/2003/pellet/demo.shtml

Every time I create an ontology, I run it through the online Pellet
validator and also the WonderWeb validator at

http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/Validator

The WonderWeb validator only tells me if the ontology is in OWL Lite or OWL
DL. The Pellet validator also tells me of unsatisfiable concepts and also
displays a class hierarchy, along with suggestions about how to make an OWL
Full ontology into an OWL DL ontology :).  When I write code around
ontologies, I do use Pellet V. 1.4 and Jena V. 2.5.2. Maybe the Pellet
version on the URL is obsolete and needs to be updated....In any case,
thanks for the help!

Cartik


On 5/2/07, Ibach, Brandon L <brandon.l.ibach at lmco.com> wrote:
>
>      Which version of Pellet are you running?  I ran your ontology,
> exactly as you provided it, under Pellet 1.4 and it classified everything
> just fine with neither complaints of unsatisfiable classes nor any classes
> declared equivalent.
>
> -Brandon :)
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com [mailto:
> pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com] *On Behalf Of *Cartik Saravana Muthu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:45 PM
> *To:* pellet-users at lists.owldl.com
> *Subject:* [Pellet-users] Pellet validator and datatype properties
>
> Hi!
>
> Here is an ontology that the Pellet validator is having problems with.
> There are three sibling disjoint concepts in this ontology viz. Neutrophil,
> Basophil, and Eosinophil, and all of them have been defined with "has
> value" restrictions on a common datatype property. PLEASE NOTE the common
> datatype property takes a different string literal value in each
> restriction. Lastly, these concepts have been declared to be mutually
> disjoint at the bottom of the ontology. Now the Pellet validator declares
> these concepts as unsatisfiable. If I remove the disjointness assertion,
> these concepts are satisfiable according to Pellet, but also equivalent to
> one another.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cartik R. Kothari, Ph.D
> Post Doctoral Research Fellow
> James Hogg iCAPTURE Institute of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research
> University of British Columbia
> Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6
>



-- 
Regards,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cartik R. Kothari, Ph.D
Post Doctoral Research Fellow
James Hogg iCAPTURE Institute of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.owldl.com/pipermail/pellet-users/attachments/20070502/f004a3eb/attachment-0001.htm