0

I want to define syntactic rules in order to control my OWL 2 consistency ontology with respsect to this language. Please, tell me if I am right:

  1. to define these rules, I must check them in this page W3C Direct Semantics?

  2. An example of such rules: to define a subclass relation: ** A subclass relation must be held between two class expressions. * if a suclass relation between a ClassExpresion1 and classExpression2 Then Individuals of the ClassExpresion1 must be a subset of the ClassExpression2

    Thank you for helping me in cheking wether such rules must considered as syntactic ones and wether there are other ones?

Joshua Taylor
  • 84,998
  • 9
  • 154
  • 353
OntoBLW
  • 3
  • 4
  • It's not entirely clear what you're asking. An OWL2 ontology is a set of axioms. Some of those axioms could be subclass axioms, e.g., "C is a subclass of D", in which case it would be necessary that the set of individuals of type C is a subset of the set of individuals of type D. – Joshua Taylor Apr 28 '14 at 14:40
  • Thank you for your response: What I look for exactly is conforminig with this assertion: "Structural Consistency ensures that the ontology obeys the constraints of the ontology language with respect to how the constructs of the ontology language are used." For me, I am seeking to define the stuctural constraints of OWL 2 ontology. – OntoBLW Apr 28 '14 at 15:25
  • I think that text is talking about an ontology being a syntactically well formed ontology. E.g., that when you write an axiom like `C subClassOf D`, that `C` and `D` are actually declared as classes, etc. For the most part, if you use an ontology editor (e.g., Protégé), you should be able to create syntactically legal ontologies. Are you running into situations where that's not happening? – Joshua Taylor Apr 28 '14 at 15:45
  • Duplicated at http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/27837/syntactic-consistency-of-owl-2-ontology . – Joshua Taylor Apr 29 '14 at 01:31
  • To me, it sounds like you're defining the rules for a parser, rather than the rules for an application using an ontology. The parser needs to worry about things like a subclass axiom having two class expressions rather than a class and an individual expression, for example; but an application using a parser, or an API including a parser, should not need to worry about this. – Ignazio Apr 29 '14 at 06:24
  • It is interesting what are you saying. However, I think that once a memeber of the subclassOf relation (or range of a property) is deleted; then, we would find isolated concepts. a sublassOf relation with only a superclass(a subclass is deleted!). Here a syntactic inconsistency is arisen. Doesn't it? – OntoBLW Apr 29 '14 at 09:06

0 Answers0