You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Since v3, BOT includes disjointness axioms among symmetric properties. When reasoning on an existing building (Espace Fauriel, in Saint-Étienne) with HermiT, these axioms seem to cause unsatisfiability.
When importing BOT as is (v3.0 and above), reasoner.isConsistent() returns false. After commenting all axioms of the form :p owl:propertyDisjointWith :q, reasoner.isConsistent() becomes true.
The building description includes bot:adjacentZone and bot:intersectsZone statements.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
we decided in the second last LBD meeting to remove the owl:propertyDisjointWith statements, to relax BOT, so they will be removed in the next release. Instead, we would like to define best practices for using BOT with non-mandatory SHACL constraints. There are plans to make a BOT data graph of an example building where we also have the full 3D geometry as the 'origin'. If you have example situations that you encountered while creating the dataset, and you were not 100% sure if your interpretation is correct, please add them to the list here: #76 (comment)
Since v3, BOT includes disjointness axioms among symmetric properties. When reasoning on an existing building (Espace Fauriel, in Saint-Étienne) with HermiT, these axioms seem to cause unsatisfiability.
When importing BOT as is (v3.0 and above),
reasoner.isConsistent()
returnsfalse
. After commenting all axioms of the form:p owl:propertyDisjointWith :q
,reasoner.isConsistent()
becomestrue
.The building description includes
bot:adjacentZone
andbot:intersectsZone
statements.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: