[Pellet-users] KRSS and Pellet

[Evren Sirin]

On 4/8/08 10:31 AM, Hongkai Liu wrote:
> Hello, thanks for your answers. I have one more question.
>
> Here is the input in KRSS:
> (instance a bottom)
>
> the pinpointing result by Pellet is:
> type(a,not(_TOP_))
>
> It is of course semantically correct. Is it possible to let Pellet
> return the assertions those are in the input instead of semantically
> equivalent ones? In the example, I would like to get
>
> type(a,bottom)
>
> as the explanation. Or Using "not top" to express "bottom" is the only
> special case, otherwise the explanation will use the assertions in the
> input. Is this observation correct?
>   

Yes, this is correct. Pellet does not have a special representation for 
bottom (or owl:Nothing) and that is why you get that explanation. Such 
an explanation would be translated back to owl:Nothing (not 
complementOf(owl:Thing)) if you were retrieving the explanation through 
OWLAPI. In other cases, the explanation should syntactically match the 
asserted axioms.

Cheers,
Evren


> Best regards.
>
> Hongkai Liu
>