|
Last modified date is: 2009-09-10 |
| Name | DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) |
|---|---|
| Also known as | |
| Author(s) | |
| SubmittedBy | CatherineRoussey, OscarCorcho |
| Motivation | We have identified a set of patterns that are commonly used by domain experts in their DL formalisations and OWL implementations, and that normally result in unsatisfiable classes or modelling errors. As aforementioned all these antipatterns come from a misuse and misunderstanding of DL expressions by ontology developers. Thus they are all Logical AntiPatterns (LAP): they are independent from a specific domain of interest, but dependent on the expressivity of the logical formalism used for the representation. |
|---|---|
| Aim | The ontology developer may want to say that C1 and C2 cannot share instances, instead of defining C1 as the logical negation of C2. Hence it could be more appropriate to state that C1 and C2 are disjoint. |
| Solution description | C1 isEquivalentTo not C2
should be replace by C1 disjointWith C2 |
| Elements | |
| Implementation | |
| Reusable component | |
| Component type |
| Problem example | Salt_Lagoon isEquivalentTo not Fresh_Waters
see concept Laguna_Salada in Hydrontology |
|---|---|
| Pattern solution example | http://www.dia.fi.upm.es/~ocorcho/OWLDebugging/ |
| Consequences |
| Origin | |
|---|---|
| Known use | |
| Reference | |
| Related ODP | |
| Used in combination with | |
| Test |
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
This revision (revision ID 5789) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab
|
Submission to event |
|---|
'Ontology Design Patterns'
