[Pellet-users] Bug? Or me not understanding OWL?

[Evren Sirin]

I think Pellet is correct. There is nothing in the original ontology 
that will cause us to infer there is an instance of hg133. The 
definition of hg133 is satisfiable so it is possible that there are 
hg133 instances but we do not know it for sure. So there is no reason to 
think that there is an individual manufactured by affy. When you 
explicitly say that there is an instance of hg133 then there is no 
question left since the value and range restrictions make us infer that 
affy manufactured hg133i1 so it is  a manufacturer.

Cheers,
Evren

On 7/11/08 11:34 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Consider this ontology:
>
> Namespace(ex = <http://example.com/>)
>   Ontology(<http://example.com/> Class(ex:manuf_role partial ex:role )
>    Individual(ex:affy type(ex:organization ))
>    ObjectProperty(ex:has_role )
>    ObjectProperty(ex:is_manufactured_by range(restriction(ex:has_role  
> someValuesFrom(ex:manuf_role ))))
>    Class(ex:hg133 partial ex:microarray )
>    Class(ex:hg133 partial restriction(ex:is_manufactured_by value 
> (ex:affy )))
>    Class(ex:manufacturer complete restriction(ex:has_role  
> someValuesFrom(ex:manuf_role ))))
>
> I would expect that ex:affy would be classified as a ex:manufacturer.  
> However, in p3, p4, and lsw using pellet 1.4 and pellet 1.5, it is not.
>
> Unless I  add an explicit microarray individual:
>
>    Individual(ex:hg133i1 type(ex:hg133 ))
>
> Then it is.
>
> Is this correct? Anyone have an explanation?
>
> -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/
>