Re: Entailment checking with pizza ontology

This has nothing to do with (logical) inconsistency nor the Open World
Assumption. The main issue for the parser is to decide on the type of
the property.

I mean, just having

hasTopping some MozzarellaTopping

is ambiguous, isn't it? How could a parser decide on the type of
hasTopping here?

On 02.03.20 20:20, William Van Woensel wrote:
>
> Hi Mikael,
>
>  
>
> It does not look like an ontology inconsistency is being thrown, but
> rather a syntax error by the Manchester OWL Syntax parser. As
> mentioned, this is quite confusing to me since your code doesn't seem
> to contradict the syntax document.
>
>  
>
> Even if it was the reasoner, I feel that this “inconsistency” would
> contradict the open world assumption.
>
>  
>
> Perhaps you could submit an issue on the Protégé GitHub page
> <https://github.com/protegeproject/protege/issues> to get some clarity
> on the issue ..
>
>  
>
>  
>
> W
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Mikael Pesonen <[email protected]>
>
> Sent: March-02-20 5:16 AM
>
> To: [email protected]
>
> Subject: RE: Entailment checking with pizza ontology
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Thanks William for verifying that. Did you also use HermiT in Protégé?
>
> That would indicate a bug or limitating feature in HermiT.
>
>  
>
> BR,
>
> Mikael
>
>  
>