Problem reading a Protege OWL file

I'm having trouble opening the attached OWL file into Protege
3.2 beta.  The file was created using Protege with OWL Plugin 2.2,
Build 311.  The error message I get is below.  The file validates
as OWL Full in the suggested validator.  In case it was a problem
with the project file, I removed pgef.pprj, but got the same error.

Any idea what the problem is?

Thanks!
Steve

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
edu.stanford.smi.protege.storage.clips.ParseException: Encountered 
"<?xml" at line 1, column 1.
Was expecting one of:
     <EOF>
     "(" ...
     ";+" ...

	at 
edu.stanford.smi.protege.storage.clips.Parser.generateParseException(Unknown 
Source)
	at 
edu.stanford.smi.protege.storage.clips.Parser.jj_consume_token(Unknown 
Source)
	at 
edu.stanford.smi.protege.storage.clips.Parser.parseKnowledgeBase(Unknown 
Source)
	at edu.stanford.smi.protege.storage.clips.Parser.loadInstances(Unknown 
Source)

Re: Problem reading a Protege OWL file

Third line:
    xmlns:pgef="http://pangalactic.us/pgef/"

1. make /, a #
2. don't use pgef here (only in file using it later); but this might not
be a problem 

Ch/Michel

> 

H.M. (Michel) Bohms
Senior Consultant Building Innovation
Building and Systems
Business Unit of TNO Built Environment and Geosciences

Email:  Michel.Bohms <at> tno.nl
Phone:  +31 15 276 3107
Fax:    +31 15 276 3024

Visiting Address: 
Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6
2628 XE Delft
The Netherlands

Postal Address:
P.O. Box 49
2600 AA  Delft
The Netherlands

Re: Can I put range restrictions on Datatype Properties?

Re: Can I put range restrictions on Datatype Properties?

Separation of taxonomy and individuals

2006 Protege Conference Deadline Reminder, Invited Talk, Tutorials, & Hotel Information

Dear Protege Users,

We would like to take this opportunity to inform you of the following 
items regarding the Protege Conference in July:

1).  The deadline for submitting presentation abstracts, poster and demo 
descriptions is one week from today on Monday, May 8th.  Please refer to 
the conference Web site for details 
(http://protege.stanford.edu/conference/2006/cfp.html).

2).  In addition to having Michael Uschold as our keynote speaker, we 
are very pleased to announce that York Sure 
(http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu/) of the Institute AIFB at the 
University of Karlsruhe will be giving the invited talk this year.

3).  We recently updated the conference Web site with the list of the 
tutorials that will be given this year 
(http://protege.stanford.edu/conference/2006/tutorials.html).

4).  The conference Web site now has a page with local lodging 
information (http://protege.stanford.edu/conference/2006/hotels.html).

We look forward to seeing you in July!

The Protege Team

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Re: allValues versus domain/range

hello,

I think that the allValues restriction is defined with respect to particular 
class, whereas the definition of range when one creates a property applies 
to all the classes which have this property.

So the allValuesFrom restriction is defined - I don't know if i use the 
correct term- "locally" for a particular class.

When we have created a property with a specific range and we have put an 
allValuesFrom restriction locally for that property on a class, then the 
range definition is retracted and the allValuesFrom restriction is applied 
but only for this class.

I don't know if there are other differences.

Dimitris.

>From: Hugo Ferreira <hmf <at> inescporto.pt>
>Reply-To: protege-owl <at> SMI.Stanford.EDU
>To: protege-owl <at> smi.stanford.edu
>Subject: [protege-owl] allValues versus domain/range
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:00:36 +0100
>
>Hi,
>
>Its seems that when one creates a property and indicates a domain and range 
>the result is equivalent to the use of the allValues restriction. Is this 
>correct? If so, when should one opt for one solution or the other?
>
>TIA,
>Hugo Ferreira
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Problem: Datatype long matching problem

Hi,
i'm working for my thesis and i'm using the protege-owl API. I have to realize a java to owl
serializator/deserializator. I have a matching problem when i try to serialize a long java variable with
the xsd:long owl datatype. My code works with int or float serialization but when i try to serialize a long
it goes in exception.
Does someone know why?
There's some known problem with this type of matching?

Thank you,

Giuseppe

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reasoning individuals

Hi,

sorry in case this question already came up before but I couldn't find
the answer in the list archive.
I am just wondering why the Reasoner (Racer Pro) doesn't report an
inconsistency when an individual doesn't match the requirements. Im my
test case I have created two classes ClassA and classB and one
property "hasClassB". All individuals of ClassA are supposed to have
"SomeValuesOf" the property "hasClassB", hence I created an
existential restriction.
Then I created an individiual of ClassA called "ClassA_2" but I did
NOT create any property for this individual. So I thought the reasoner
would report an inconsistancy due to the missing "hasClassB" property.

The test ontology including the individual are posted below. Many
thanks in advance for your help.
Best regards,
Maurice

SAMPLE ONTOLOGY:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
  xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
  xmlns="http://www.owl-ontologies.com/unnamed.owl#"
 xml:base="http://www.owl-ontologies.com/unnamed.owl">
 <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""/>
 <owl:Class rdf:ID="ClassB">
  <owl:disjointWith>
    <owl:Class rdf:ID="ClassA"/>
  </owl:disjointWith>
 </owl:Class>
 <owl:Class rdf:about="#ClassA">
  <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing"/>
  <owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#ClassB"/>
  <rdfs:subClassOf>
    <owl:Restriction>
      <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#ClassB"/>
      <owl:onProperty>
        <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasClassB"/>
      </owl:onProperty>
    </owl:Restriction>
  </rdfs:subClassOf>
 </owl:Class>
 <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasClassB">
  <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#ClassB"/>
  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ClassA"/>
 </owl:ObjectProperty>
 <ClassA rdf:ID="ClassA_2"/>
</rdf:RDF>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Re: Reasoning individuals

Hi Maurice,

> sorry in case this question already came up before but I couldn't find
> the answer in the list archive.
> I am just wondering why the Reasoner (Racer Pro) doesn't report an
> inconsistency when an individual doesn't match the requirements. Im my
> test case I have created two classes ClassA and classB and one
> property "hasClassB". All individuals of ClassA are supposed to have
> "SomeValuesOf" the property "hasClassB", hence I created an
> existential restriction.
> Then I created an individiual of ClassA called "ClassA_2" but I did
> NOT create any property for this individual. So I thought the reasoner
> would report an inconsistancy due to the missing "hasClassB" property.

This is the correct behaviour and it is due to the open world  
assumption.  It will be assumed that a relationship from ClassA_2  
along hasClassB exists -- you haven't explicitly said that this  
relationship doesn't exist for this particular individual.  In other  
words, just because you haven't stated something to be true doesn't  
necessarily mean it's false - contrast this with databases.

Cheers,

Matthew

> The test ontology including the individual are posted below. Many
> thanks in advance for your help.
> Best regards,
> Maurice
>
> SAMPLE ONTOLOGY:
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <rdf:RDF
>  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"
>  xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
>  xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
>  xmlns="http://www.owl-ontologies.com/unnamed.owl#"
> xml:base="http://www.owl-ontologies.com/unnamed.owl">
> <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""/>
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="ClassB">
>  <owl:disjointWith>
>    <owl:Class rdf:ID="ClassA"/>
>  </owl:disjointWith>
> </owl:Class>
> <owl:Class rdf:about="#ClassA">
>  <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing"/>
>  <owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#ClassB"/>
>  <rdfs:subClassOf>
>    <owl:Restriction>
>      <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="#ClassB"/>
>      <owl:onProperty>
>        <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasClassB"/>
>      </owl:onProperty>
>    </owl:Restriction>
>  </rdfs:subClassOf>
> </owl:Class>
> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasClassB">
>  <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#ClassB"/>
>  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ClassA"/>
> </owl:ObjectProperty>
> <ClassA rdf:ID="ClassA_2"/>
> </rdf:RDF>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
> subscribe.html
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html