Scott, Thanks for the reply.
> Pellet and SwiftOWLIM, for example, do not make this inference... > ...This is now resolved by relying on the reasoner for inferences. Then if I understand you correctly one is required to assert both the Male->Female and Female->Male disjointedness. Perhaps this next comment is best left for the Pellet user group. However, I will make it here in the interest of completeness for this thread, and I appreaciate feedback from TBC forum memebers. I find it unusual that a logic-based reasoning engine would not infer that Female is disjoint with Male when the Male->Female disjointedness is asserted. How could there be any other logical conclusion? Thanks. Regards, Anthony On Nov 5, 10:38 am, Scott Henninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
