Apologies, hadn't seen that it was already reported.
On Nov 6, 1:55 pm, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jody,
>
> this is actually the same error that Paul has reported yesterday.
> Basically the create restriction dialog does not work if the Group by
> namespace option is activated for the Properties tree.
>
> We plan to do a 3.2.1 patch release soon (possibly next week) which
> will fix those rather obvious errors :)
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
> On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Jody wrote:
>
>
>
> > One more 3.2.0 glitch:
>
> > I've found that the drag and drop feature of a property from the
> > property view to the owl:equivalentClass property on a class form does
> > not bring up the restriction wizard if the property view is grouped by
> > namespace. I haven't tested around to see if there are other drag/
> > drop issues from this component or if it's specifically the
> > restriction wizard.
>
> > Jody
>
> > On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Just to confirm: did you have the option "Generate class expressions
> >> in English prose" checked for the HTML exporter? I just discovered
> >> that this also does not handle the new owl:oneOf encoding yet.
>
> >> And I cannot reproduce the problem you describe below, with the
> >> Failed
> >> to render OWL resource error - I do not have enough information I
> >> guess. If you still see this error with one of your files, I would
> >> like to get a copy of this file (in a private message).
>
> >> Thanks
> >> Holger
>
> >> On Nov 6, 2009, at 6:06 AM, PaulZH wrote:
>
> >>> However after the change ...
>
> >>> The HTML export chokes on this.
>
> >>> Could not execute HTML generator.
> >>> Cannot convert node "a"^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#stringto
> >>> OntResource.
>
> >>> On Nov 6, 2:57 pm, PaulZH <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Indeed.
>
> >>>> Solved by using {"a", "b" ,"c"} instead of owl:oneOf{"a",
> >>>> "b" ,"c"} .
>
> >>>> Paul
>
> >>>> On Nov 6, 9:38 am, PaulZH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I suppose this error is related to the same (1).
>
> >>>>> a) baseuri a.n3
>
> >>>>> x:a
> >>>>> a owl:DatatypeProperty ;
> >>>>> rdfs:range
> >>>>> [ a owl:DataRange ;
> >>>>> owl:oneOf ("a"^^xsd:string "b"^^xsd:string
> >>>>> "c"^^xsd:string)
> >>>>> ] .
>
> >>>>> which shows up in the form interface under rdfs:range as
>
> >>>>> owl:oneOf{"a" "b" "c"}
>
> >>>>> I would have expected now owl:oneOf{"a", "b" ,"c"}
>
> >>>>> b) baseuri b.n3 importing a.n3
>
> >>>>> x:a
> >>>>> rdfs:domain
> >>>>> [ a owl:Class ;
> >>>>> owl:unionOf (x:A x:B)
> >>>>> ] .
>
> >>>>> Now rdfs:range shows for x:a
>
> >>>>> [Error: Failed to render OWL resource -
> >>>>> bca5cc9:124c887bacb:-791e]
>
> >>>>> Paul
>
> >>>>> On Nov 5, 11:38 pm, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Nov 5, 2009, at 9:13 AM, PhilA wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Thanks Holger
> >>>>>>> Point 1. Could you update the help file? I did check to see if
> >>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>> was a syntax change. Ta.
>
> >>>>>> Thanks, I have updated the help page on Creating enumerations
> >>>>>> (this
> >>>>>> was the only reference to owl:oneOf I found).
>
> >>>>>>> As for point 2.
> >>>>>>> So even though I don't have owl2 activated in the ontology are
> >>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>> saying I am going to be restricted by it?
>
> >>>>>> Yes, in 3.2.0 at least because we have moved to a new rendering
> >>>>>> API
> >>>>>> for OWL in general. But I have just fixed this to work around
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> limitation of the OWL API.
>
> >>>>>>> When you say that it will be handled more gracefully I presume
> >>>>>>> you are
> >>>>>>> saying that it will still be an error?
>
> >>>>>> I think it's an error of the OWL API to not handle such cases,
> >>>>>> because
> >>>>>> what you are doing is perfectly valid in RDF and OWL Full. But
> >>>>>> since
> >>>>>> the OWL API is not using RDF under the hood, I am not terribly
> >>>>>> surprised about such problems. We will replace this component
> >>>>>> soon.
>
> >>>>>>> This is going to cause me some massive problems as I have lots
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> ontologies that have inversefunctional datatype properties.
> >>>>>>> I see it loads of places in other ontologies as well.
>
> >>>>>> We are doing nightly builds now, and we can make an intermediate
> >>>>>> 3.2.1
> >>>>>> with critical things like that available. I will keep you posted.
>
> >>>>>> Holger
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
