On 19/03/13 00:35, Brian McBride wrote:
On 18/03/2013 21:36, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 18/03/13 21:16, Joshua TAYLOR wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Brian McBride
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 18/03/2013 20:18, Joshua TAYLOR wrote:
This spurred me to look at some of the relevant rules, and I'm kind of
puzzled by them. E.g., (from owl-fb.rules, line 277):
[maxRec2: (?C owl:equivalentClass max(?P, 0)), (?P rdfs:domain ?D),
(?E owl:disjointWith ?D)
-> (?E owl:equivalentClass ?C)]
That's not quite the situation here however ...
Having been wrong twice already, I'm a bit hesitant here, but I think
this rule does explain what is going on.
As I've said, the presenting problem is at least partly caused by the
illegal use of owl:equivalentClass in the source ontology and if I
remove that then the test case (listing super classes of
#AircraftHijacking) works.
However, as I've also said, I do agree that those two rules are
incorrect. Thanks for the test case. I've recorded it as JENA-416 and
applied a fix.
Dave
