Transitive ObjectProperty, with Functional sub-properties
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Hi Fabian,
I personally cannot see anything wrong with declaring an object property p as transitive and three subproperties q1, q2 and q3 of p as functional. Or do you have have other axioms about q1, q2 or q3 in your ontology? The "danger" comes in when they are not simple any longer, for instance when they are declared to be transitive or occur on the right hand side of a subproperty axiom involving an object property chain. According to the OWL 2 specification, they are then not allowed, for instance, to be declared functional [1]. Can you perhaps let us know what you mean by "'strange' behaviour using Pellet" and "fine with Fact++"? Cheers Thomas [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-owl2-syntax-20090611/#Global_Restrictions_on_Axioms_in_OWL_2_DL On 10 Nov 2009, at 08:13, Fabian wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't now if there is a simple answer without a concrete example, > but lets > try. > > What are the 'danger' to have an ObjectProperty with 3 sub- > properties. The > parent property being Transitive, and the 3 sub-properties being > Functional. > > I can see some 'strange' behaviour using Pellet, but seems fine with > Fact++. > > Is there something 'basically' wrong with that ? > thanks > Fabian > -- > View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p585290.html > Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > protege-owl mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl > > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk | | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt | | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 | | University of Manchester | | Oxford Road _///_ | | Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) | +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+ Nantwich (n.) A late-night snack, invented by the Earl of Nantwich, which consists of the dampest thing in the fridge. The Earl, who lived in a flat in Clapham, invented the nantwich to avoid having to go shopping. Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 |
||||||||
PGP.sig (210 bytes) |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Hi Fabian,
in my point of view, the behaviour of Pellet in this case seems wrong: after you've added an axiom for Class2, you shouldn't get less inferences. Pellet people, could you please have a look into this? But I've noticed another problem, see inline comments: On 12 Nov 2009, at 07:37, Fabian wrote: > > Thanks Tomas, > > I will have a closer look at the OWL2 specification. > > Here is more information about the 'simple' case: > (if needed, I will try to provide the ontology, but it will need > some work > to change some terms as the project can't be disclosed sofar) > > 4 properties: > parent property, transitivie: isPropTrans > 3 sub-properties that are functional: isSubPropFunc1, > isSubPropFunc2,isSubPropFunc3 > > than I have about 40 individuals in triples, but they "respect" the > constraints (the functional property is used only once) > > So, given > indA isSubPropFunc1 indB > indA isSubPropFunc2 indC > indA isSubPropFunc3 indD > > the reasoner will infer > indA isPropTrans indB > indA isPropTrans indC > indA isPropTrans indD > > which is what I want. > > All individuals are instances of Class1, which has no axiom. > > Now, I can see that the "problem" arise when I have another class > with the > following axiom: > Class2 > with axiom: > (isSubPropFunc1 some {D}) > or (isSubPropFunc2 some {D}) > or (isSubPropFunc3 some {D}) -- or a subclass? > Than, I run the reasoner > -> class2 is classified as subClass of Class 1 I don't agree with this entailment because it does not follow from what you've said so far. From the previous axioms, I can only infer that every instance of Class2 is an instance of "(isSubPropFunc1 some {D}) or (isSubPropFunc2 some {D}) or (isSubPropFunc3 some {D})", but we cannot conclude that every instance of one of these conjuncts is an instance of Class1. The class and property assertions above only say that *some* instance of Class1 (namely indA) is an instance of isSubPropFunc1 some {D} etc. > -> indA has an inferred Type Class2 (thats what I want) > -> and here is the behaviour i dont understand: > I was expecting as before: > indA isPropTrans indB > indA isPropTrans indC > indA isPropTrans indD > > but I get only > indA isPropTrans indB > indA isPropTrans indD > > the inference indA isParentTrans indC > is missing > > and also the system (protégé) becomes slow > > If i change the reasoner from Pellet to Fact++, > the system is normal, and I do have the 3 inferences > indA isPropTrans indB > indA isPropTrans indC > indA isPropTrans indD Cheers Thomas > > Is there something obvious here ? > Or could it come from the ABox of my 40 individuals having asserted > links > with the 3 sub-properties ? > > Thanks for any help > Fabian > > > Thomas Schneider-5 wrote: >> >> Hi Fabian, >> >> I personally cannot see anything wrong with declaring an object >> property p as transitive and three subproperties q1, q2 and q3 of p >> as >> functional. Or do you have have other axioms about q1, q2 or q3 in >> your ontology? The "danger" comes in when they are not simple any >> longer, for instance when they are declared to be transitive or occur >> on the right hand side of a subproperty axiom involving an object >> property chain. According to the OWL 2 specification, they are then >> not allowed, for instance, to be declared functional [1]. >> >> Can you perhaps let us know what you mean by "'strange' behaviour >> using Pellet" and "fine with Fact++"? >> >> Cheers >> >> Thomas >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-owl2-syntax-20090611/#Global_Restrictions_on_Axioms_in_OWL_2_DL >> >> On 10 Nov 2009, at 08:13, Fabian wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't now if there is a simple answer without a concrete example, >>> but lets >>> try. >>> >>> What are the 'danger' to have an ObjectProperty with 3 sub- >>> properties. The >>> parent property being Transitive, and the 3 sub-properties being >>> Functional. >>> >>> I can see some 'strange' behaviour using Pellet, but seems fine with >>> Fact++. >>> >>> Is there something 'basically' wrong with that ? >>> thanks >>> Fabian >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p585290.html >>> Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> protege-owl mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl >>> >>> Instructions for unsubscribing: >>> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 >> >> + >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) >> cs.man.ac.uk | >> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ >> ~schneidt | >> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 >> 2756136 | >> | University of >> Manchester | >> | Oxford Road _/// >> _ | >> | Manchester M13 9PL >> (o~o) | >> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)-- >> OOOo--+ >> >> Nantwich (n.) >> A late-night snack, invented by the Earl of Nantwich, which >> consists >> of the dampest thing in the fridge. The Earl, who lived in a flat >> in >> Clapham, invented the nantwich to avoid having to go shopping. >> >> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of >> Liff >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> protege-owl mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl >> >> Instructions for unsubscribing: >> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p620070.html > Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > protege-owl mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl > > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk | | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt | | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 | | University of Manchester | | Oxford Road _///_ | | Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) | +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+ Nantwich (n.) A late-night snack, invented by the Earl of Nantwich, which consists of the dampest thing in the fridge. The Earl, who lived in a flat in Clapham, invented the nantwich to avoid having to go shopping. Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
On 12 Nov 2009, at 09:14, Fabian wrote: > > Thanks, > > Maybe I should really send the ontology, it would be easier for you to > understand, I might work on it. I'd suggest you create a minimal example (a part of your ontology, obfuscated) which shows the problematic behaviour of Pellet and send it to this list -- or better still the Pellet users mailing list: http://lists.owldl.com/mailman/listinfo/pellet-users This should cost you less effort than obfuscating your whole ontology, and might make it easier to spot the source of the error. > About your remarks: >>> You mean you said that Class2 is equivalent to this class expression > -- or a subclass? > > not a subclass, but equivalent to this class expression OK. > >>> Than, I run the reasoner >>> -> class2 is classified as subClass of Class 1 > >> I don't agree with this entailment because it does not follow from >> what you've said so far. From the previous axioms, I can only infer >> that every instance of Class2 is an instance of "(isSubPropFunc1 some >> {D}) or (isSubPropFunc2 some {D}) or (isSubPropFunc3 some {D})", but >> we cannot conclude that every instance of one of these conjuncts is >> an >> instance of Class1. The class and property assertions above only say >> that *some* instance of Class1 (namely indA) is an instance of >> isSubPropFunc1 some {D} etc. > Ok, this came from the fact the the 4 properties have Range/Domain > Class 1 > Does it make sense then ? > Anyway, if I remove the range/domain from the 4 properties: > - the Class 2 is no more classified as subClass of Class1 OK. > -> but the problem remains See above. Cheers Thomas > > Fabian > > -- > View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p620131.html > Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > protege-owl mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl > > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk | | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt | | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 | | University of Manchester | | Oxford Road _///_ | | Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) | +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+ Nantwich (n.) A late-night snack, invented by the Earl of Nantwich, which consists of the dampest thing in the fridge. The Earl, who lived in a flat in Clapham, invented the nantwich to avoid having to go shopping. Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Oops ... that really sounds mysterious. I'd be interested in the names
of the individuals, but you might not be able/allowed to disclose them? In any case, that's interesting for the Pellet people, I would think. Thomas On 12 Nov 2009, at 16:11, Fabian wrote: > > uhhhh..... > I created the minimal example, stripping out what was not necessary to > reproduce the symptom. > > So, I have 23 individuals, 4 properties, 2 classes. > > The symptom is still there. > > Now, i want to change the names of the individual (as i said, i > should keep > this ontology 'private' for now) > -> changing the names of a few individuals (refactor - change entity > URI), > and re-running the reasoner > --> the symptoms disappear!!!! > > Also: starting with the minimal ontology where the symptom occurs > -> editing the .owl file in a text editor, to change the URI of the > ontology > --> when reloading it in protégé, the symptoms disappear!!! > > Thats weird, no ? > > So it seems that the problem doesn't come from the ontology > modeling, but > from the URI's that are used ? (which have nothing special i think) > > What should I do now ?? post this information to the pellet list ? > Thanks > Fabian > > > > Thomas Schneider-5 wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Nov 2009, at 09:14, Fabian wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Maybe I should really send the ontology, it would be easier for >>> you to >>> understand, I might work on it. >> >> I'd suggest you create a minimal example (a part of your ontology, >> obfuscated) which shows the problematic behaviour of Pellet and send >> it to this list -- or better still the Pellet users mailing list: >> http://lists.owldl.com/mailman/listinfo/pellet-users >> >> This should cost you less effort than obfuscating your whole >> ontology, >> and might make it easier to spot the source of the error. >> >>> About your remarks: >>>>> You mean you said that Class2 is equivalent to this class >>>>> expression >>> -- or a subclass? >>> >>> not a subclass, but equivalent to this class expression >> >> OK. >> >>> >>>>> Than, I run the reasoner >>>>> -> class2 is classified as subClass of Class 1 >>> >>>> I don't agree with this entailment because it does not follow from >>>> what you've said so far. From the previous axioms, I can only infer >>>> that every instance of Class2 is an instance of "(isSubPropFunc1 >>>> some >>>> {D}) or (isSubPropFunc2 some {D}) or (isSubPropFunc3 some {D})", >>>> but >>>> we cannot conclude that every instance of one of these conjuncts is >>>> an >>>> instance of Class1. The class and property assertions above only >>>> say >>>> that *some* instance of Class1 (namely indA) is an instance of >>>> isSubPropFunc1 some {D} etc. >>> Ok, this came from the fact the the 4 properties have Range/Domain >>> Class 1 >>> Does it make sense then ? >> >> Oh yes, sure, then this is not a problem anymore. >> >>> Anyway, if I remove the range/domain from the 4 properties: >>> - the Class 2 is no more classified as subClass of Class1 >> >> OK. >> >>> -> but the problem remains >> >> See above. >> >> Cheers >> >> Thomas >> >>> >>> Fabian >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p620131.html >>> Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> protege-owl mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl >>> >>> Instructions for unsubscribing: >>> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 >> >> + >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) >> cs.man.ac.uk | >> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ >> ~schneidt | >> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 >> 2756136 | >> | University of >> Manchester | >> | Oxford Road _/// >> _ | >> | Manchester M13 9PL >> (o~o) | >> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)-- >> OOOo--+ >> >> Nantwich (n.) >> A late-night snack, invented by the Earl of Nantwich, which >> consists >> of the dampest thing in the fridge. The Earl, who lived in a flat >> in >> Clapham, invented the nantwich to avoid having to go shopping. >> >> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of >> Liff >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> protege-owl mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl >> >> Instructions for unsubscribing: >> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p620370.html > Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > protege-owl mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl > > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk | | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt | | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 | | University of Manchester | | Oxford Road _///_ | | Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) | +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+ Nantwich (n.) A late-night snack, invented by the Earl of Nantwich, which consists of the dampest thing in the fridge. The Earl, who lived in a flat in Clapham, invented the nantwich to avoid having to go shopping. Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
On 17 Nov 2009, at 07:20, Fabian wrote: > > Hello Thomas, > > did you get my .owl file ? Via the Pellet list, yes. > can you reproduce that behaviour ? No, I'm not getting these errors: Pellet does not infer Class2 to be a subclass of Class1, and I can get all three inferences involving the subproperty. I've used the latest Pellet plugin for Protégé 4. Cheers Thomas > > thanks > Fabian > > > Thomas Schneider-5 wrote: >> >> Oops ... that really sounds mysterious. I'd be interested in the >> names >> of the individuals, but you might not be able/allowed to disclose >> them? >> >> In any case, that's interesting for the Pellet people, I would think. >> >> Thomas >> >> On 12 Nov 2009, at 16:11, Fabian wrote: >> >>> >>> uhhhh..... >>> I created the minimal example, stripping out what was not >>> necessary to >>> reproduce the symptom. >>> >>> So, I have 23 individuals, 4 properties, 2 classes. >>> >>> The symptom is still there. >>> >>> Now, i want to change the names of the individual (as i said, i >>> should keep >>> this ontology 'private' for now) >>> -> changing the names of a few individuals (refactor - change entity >>> URI), >>> and re-running the reasoner >>> --> the symptoms disappear!!!! >>> >>> Also: starting with the minimal ontology where the symptom occurs >>> -> editing the .owl file in a text editor, to change the URI of the >>> ontology >>> --> when reloading it in protégé, the symptoms disappear!!! >>> >>> Thats weird, no ? >>> >>> So it seems that the problem doesn't come from the ontology >>> modeling, but >>> from the URI's that are used ? (which have nothing special i think) >>> >>> What should I do now ?? post this information to the pellet list ? >>> Thanks >>> Fabian >>> >>> >>> >>> Thomas Schneider-5 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 Nov 2009, at 09:14, Fabian wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I should really send the ontology, it would be easier for >>>>> you to >>>>> understand, I might work on it. >>>> >>>> I'd suggest you create a minimal example (a part of your ontology, >>>> obfuscated) which shows the problematic behaviour of Pellet and >>>> send >>>> it to this list -- or better still the Pellet users mailing list: >>>> http://lists.owldl.com/mailman/listinfo/pellet-users >>>> >>>> This should cost you less effort than obfuscating your whole >>>> ontology, >>>> and might make it easier to spot the source of the error. >>>> >>>>> About your remarks: >>>>>>> You mean you said that Class2 is equivalent to this class >>>>>>> expression >>>>> -- or a subclass? >>>>> >>>>> not a subclass, but equivalent to this class expression >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Than, I run the reasoner >>>>>>> -> class2 is classified as subClass of Class 1 >>>>> >>>>>> I don't agree with this entailment because it does not follow >>>>>> from >>>>>> what you've said so far. From the previous axioms, I can only >>>>>> infer >>>>>> that every instance of Class2 is an instance of "(isSubPropFunc1 >>>>>> some >>>>>> {D}) or (isSubPropFunc2 some {D}) or (isSubPropFunc3 some {D})", >>>>>> but >>>>>> we cannot conclude that every instance of one of these >>>>>> conjuncts is >>>>>> an >>>>>> instance of Class1. The class and property assertions above only >>>>>> say >>>>>> that *some* instance of Class1 (namely indA) is an instance of >>>>>> isSubPropFunc1 some {D} etc. >>>>> Ok, this came from the fact the the 4 properties have Range/Domain >>>>> Class 1 >>>>> Does it make sense then ? >>>> >>>> Oh yes, sure, then this is not a problem anymore. >>>> >>>>> Anyway, if I remove the range/domain from the 4 properties: >>>>> - the Class 2 is no more classified as subClass of Class1 >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>>> -> but the problem remains >>>> >>>> See above. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fabian >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p620131.html >>>>> Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> protege-owl mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl >>>>> >>>>> Instructions for unsubscribing: >>>>> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 >>>> >>>> + >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>>> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) >>>> cs.man.ac.uk | >>>> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ >>>> ~schneidt | >>>> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 >>>> 2756136 | >>>> | University of >>>> Manchester | >>>> | Oxford Road _/// >>>> _ | >>>> | Manchester M13 9PL >>>> (o~o) | >>>> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)-- >>>> OOOo--+ >>>> >>>> Nantwich (n.) >>>> A late-night snack, invented by the Earl of Nantwich, which >>>> consists >>>> of the dampest thing in the fridge. The Earl, who lived in a flat >>>> in >>>> Clapham, invented the nantwich to avoid having to go shopping. >>>> >>>> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of >>>> Liff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> protege-owl mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl >>>> >>>> Instructions for unsubscribing: >>>> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p620370.html >>> Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> protege-owl mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl >>> >>> Instructions for unsubscribing: >>> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 >> >> + >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) >> cs.man.ac.uk | >> | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ >> ~schneidt | >> | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 >> 2756136 | >> | University of >> Manchester | >> | Oxford Road _/// >> _ | >> | Manchester M13 9PL >> (o~o) | >> +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)-- >> OOOo--+ >> >> Nantwich (n.) >> A late-night snack, invented by the Earl of Nantwich, which >> consists >> of the dampest thing in the fridge. The Earl, who lived in a flat >> in >> Clapham, invented the nantwich to avoid having to go shopping. >> >> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of >> Liff >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> protege-owl mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl >> >> Instructions for unsubscribing: >> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Transitive-ObjectProperty-with-Functional-sub-properties-tp585290p622596.html > Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > protege-owl mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl > > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 | Dr Thomas Schneider schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk | | School of Computer Science http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt | | Kilburn Building, Room 2.114 phone +44 161 2756136 | | University of Manchester | | Oxford Road _///_ | | Manchester M13 9PL (o~o) | +-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+ Soller (vb.) To break something in two while testing if you glued it together properly. Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff _______________________________________________ protege-owl mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
