[Pellet-users] Pin-pointing (Explanation set) given by the Pellet

[Evren Sirin]

On 7/11/08 10:34 AM, Jigneshkumar Viradia wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sometimes pellet explanation set (pinpointing) responsible for
> causing the inconsistency of the ABox, is not the subset of
> the  ABox  on which the consistency was checked.

Sometimes due to internal transformations axioms in the explanation set 
may be structurally different. But we try hard to avoid this and 
especially if you are using OWLAPI interface this should not happen 
except some minor corner cases. Can you give us examples when you get an 
explanation without and asserted axiom?

>
> If we do not use any role - assertions in the ABox,
> then I think this problem does not occure in Pellet.

AFAIK, there is no relation to role assertions and this problem.

>
> Is this true ? or are there still chances to get
> explanations which are not the member of the ABox
> (just having concept assertions) ??

Yes, the corner case I mentioned above for example happens with concept 
in the for (p some {a}), i.e. using a combination of owl:someValuesFrom 
and owl:oneOf. If you use that class in a type assertion the explanation 
would return an owl:hasValue restriction (which is semantically 
equivalent but syntactically different).

Cheers,
Evren
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
> Jigneshkumar Viradia
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/