CODEWITHSUNDEEP
owlontologyprotegepellet
alex
alex

Reputation: 7895

OWL: complementary behavior in equivalent class definition

In the following ontology we have eliminate Pizza in equivalent definition of VegaterainPizza. also domain of hasTopping is Pizza.

enter image description here

after executing the pellet,the following result is deduced.

enter image description here

enter image description here

I need to know why Pizza is equivalent to Thing and Food?

Upvotes: 0

Views: 260

Answers (1)

Ignazio
Ignazio

Reputation: 10659

As mentioned in the comments by AKSW:

Simplifying the names to make the axioms shorter: VegetarianPizza named V hasTopping named h Pizza named P PizzaTopping named PT Food named F

V equivalent to not (h some PT)
h domain P
V subclass P

Now, consider any individual, with or without assertions for the property h.

a h b

implies a is of type P

For any other individuals c, d... without assertions with property h, they belong to not( h some PT), which is defined as equivalent to V. And V is defined as subclass of P.

So, no matter whether an individual has an h filer (i.e., has a topping) or not, it ends up being an instance of P; therefore P is equivalent to owl:Thing, and so is every superclass of P, in this case F.

As you mention, removing the not changes this result. This is because without the not P no longer includes all individuals.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions