Anthony; Yes this is a known issue for the versions of TBC you mention. The next release of TBC will address this and other issues by not making "trivial" inferences such as owl:inverseOf, making symmetric properties inverse of itself, synchronizing domain and range of inverse properties, disjointness, etc. The overall decision is to leave inferences to the reasoning engines Composer interfaces with. The inference that all named class has at least one named superclass (e.g. owl:Thing) will be retained.
In this case, while one could expect that if we assert 'Male owl:disjointWith Female' that 'Female owl:disjointWith Male' will be inferred. Pellet and SwiftOWLIM, for example, do not make this inference. Hence the problem you cite. Composer makes the inference, the reasoner does not, and when the inferences are retracted, Composer has trouble knowing which inferences to retract. This is now resolved by relying on the reasoner for inferences. In terms of reasoning with owl:disjointWith, the key is that it defines that an instances cannot be a member of disjoint classes. Stating disjointness only needs to be done once. -- Scott On Nov 5, 8:04 am, SemanticsQuest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > I tested this with TBC versions 2.5.3 & 2.6.2, and the behavior is the > same. > > There are 2 classes: Male and Female. Male is asserted to be disjoint > with Female. > > Once I assert the Male to Female disjointedness relation, TBC > automatically infers a Female to Male disjointedness relation, as > expected. It does not yet appear in the Inference panel, which is also > expected. After I run the Pellet inference engine, the Female to Male > disjointedness relation appears in the Inference panel, as expected. > > Here's where it becomes problematic. > > Once I reset the inferences, the inferred Female to Male > disjointedness relation disappears both from the Female Class Form and > the Inference panel, as expected. Unfortunately, when I re-run the > Pellet inference engine the Female to Male disjointedness relation > appears neither in the Female Class Form nor the Inference panel, > which is not expected. > > The aforementioned inferrence is "lost". > > I'd appreciate your feedback. > > Regards, > > Anthony --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
