The "exists" name problem can be avoided by simply changing its name to, let's say, "itExists". But the StarTrek ontology seems to have a bigger problem with "OpSpec" node, which causes PowerLoom to crush even when changing its name to, say, "OperatorSpecies".
Seems to me that it's PowerLoom which is causing such problems... Should we evaluate another options?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Some reserved names crushes the PR-OWL's I/O as well (for instance, we cannot create a node/mfrag having the same name of an existing OWL property). This bug/restriction denies the creation of resident nodes directly representing an OWL property in PR-OWL ver1 (thus, we are forced to append some prefix or suffix to their names when necessary).
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1545749
Originator: YES
The "exists" name problem can be avoided by simply changing its name to, let's say, "itExists". But the StarTrek ontology seems to have a bigger problem with "OpSpec" node, which causes PowerLoom to crush even when changing its name to, say, "OperatorSpecies".
Seems to me that it's PowerLoom which is causing such problems... Should we evaluate another options?
Logged In: YES
user_id=1545749
Originator: YES
We'll solve this after implementing PR-OWL storage of findings.
Some reserved names crushes the PR-OWL's I/O as well (for instance, we cannot create a node/mfrag having the same name of an existing OWL property). This bug/restriction denies the creation of resident nodes directly representing an OWL property in PR-OWL ver1 (thus, we are forced to append some prefix or suffix to their names when necessary).