Bunny eats Carrots: Model 2, Inferencing explained (ChatGPT)

Bunny eats Carrots: Model 2, Inferencing explained (ChatGPT)#

Caution

An experiment: Ask ChatGPT for help. Result: Interesting. Valid at many points. But fundamental mistakes also occur. Sounds good at the first point. But it turns to become more or less worthless due to fundamental misunderstandings. Not useful at all. However, we pusblish it to document sources of deep misunderstandings.)

Prompt

I will give you an OWL Ontology. In OWL1 it would be OWL DL; in OWL 2 it would be the OWL2 RL profile. The format is ttl. As usual in OWL we have OWA.

Ontology#

Great! Go ahead and upload the OWL ontology file in Turtle (.ttl) format. Once I have it, I can help you with analysis, reasoning, querying (e.g., SPARQL), validation, or anything else you need—just let me know what you’d like to do with the ontology.

Also, since you’re working within OWL DL / OWL 2 RL under the Open World Assumption (OWA), I’ll keep that in mind when interpreting axioms and inferred entailments.

Prompt

@prefix : <http://example.org/ns#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .

Thanks! You’ve started with the prefix declarations, which are perfect for a Turtle (.ttl) OWL ontology. Please go ahead and provide the rest of the ontology (classes, properties, individuals, axioms, etc.) so I can help you with it.

Prompt

:Carrot rdfs:subClassOf :rabbit_food .
:Lettuce rdfs:subClassOf :rabbit_food .

:Bunny a :Rabbit ;
   :eat :treat_123 .

Nice! You’ve defined a basic ontology snippet with:

  1. Subclass relationships:

    • :Carrot and :Lettuce are subclasses of :rabbit_food.

  2. Instance assertion:

    • :Bunny is a :Rabbit and has an :eat relation to :treat_123.

This setup raises a few possible next steps or questions, depending on what you’re aiming to do:

🔍 Interpretation So Far#

  • You’re implying a food domain, possibly related to rabbits and their diets.

  • :eat is used as a property (though it’s not explicitly declared).

  • You’re using the Open World Assumption (OWA), so unless explicitly stated, we can’t assume that :treat_123 is or isn’t :Carrot or :Lettuce.

🚀 Ideas for Next Steps#

Here are a few ways we could expand or analyze this ontology:

1. Add Axioms#

  • Declare :eat as an owl:ObjectProperty.

  • Define domain and range for :eat.

:eat a owl:ObjectProperty ;
     rdfs:domain :Rabbit ;
     rdfs:range :rabbit_food .

2. Query#

You might want to ask, for example:

Which individuals does :Bunny eat, and are they inferred to be :rabbit_food?

3. Reasoning#

If :treat_123 is asserted to be a :Carrot, then a reasoner would infer it’s a :rabbit_food.

:treat_123 a :Carrot .

That would lead to:

  • :treat_123 is a :rabbit_food via subclass reasoning.

  • :Bunny eats something that is :rabbit_food, satisfying the range of :eat.

Prompt

:lovs rdfs:range :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided .

:Carrot_Lettuce_undecided
   owl:unionOf ( :Carrot :Lettuce ) .

:Snowball :lovs :treat_456 .

Nice! You’re getting into OWL class expressions now, using owl:unionOf to define a disjunctive range.

Caution

J.Busse: Remember that owl:unionOf means inclusive or, not exclusive xor, i.e. we do not even think of something like disjointness here.

Let’s unpack what you’ve just defined:

🧠 Semantics of Your Ontology Snippet#

1. Property Range Using Union#

:lovs rdfs:range :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided .

:Carrot_Lettuce_undecided
   owl:unionOf ( :Carrot :Lettuce ) .

  • This says that anything which is the object of :lovs must be either a :Carrot or a :Lettuce (or both, under OWA).

  • The class :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided is the union of :Carrot and :Lettuce.

2. Assertion#

:Snowball :lovs :treat_456 .

  • So now, under OWL semantics, in order to satisfy the range constraint, a reasoner would infer that :treat_456 is either a :Carrot, a :Lettuce, or both.

Caution

J.Busse: ChatGPT is wrong in this last claim. The only range information we have concerns the class :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided ., but none of it’s subclasses.

BUT — and here’s where OWL reasoning is cool — unless more information is provided, we don’t know which of the two it is. Under the Open World Assumption, both possibilities are left open.

Caution

J.Busse: This is true – but only if we accept, that the only valid domain inference concerns the class :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided (which has :Carrot and :Lettuce as subclasses).

✅ What a Reasoner Can Infer#

After reasoning, you might get:

:treat_456 a [ owl:oneOf ( :Carrot :Lettuce ) ] .

Caution

J.Busse: An interesting interpretation! However: owl:oneOf is an enumeration type. And owl:oneOf ( :Carrot :Lettuce ) is definitely soemthing else than owl:unionOf ( :Carrot :Lettuce ). However, the misunderstanding of ChatGPT mirrors a pretty common misunderstanding. We might ask ChatGPT how this claim might be inferred, but that’s not important for our diskussion.

or, more usefully:

:treat_456 a :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided .

Caution

J.Busse: Now, this is correct.

But you won’t get a definitive type (e.g., just :Carrot) unless explicitly stated.

Caution

[I asked for some more clarifications; got some more wrong answers; then: ]

Excellent challenge — and you’re absolutely right to press on this point. Let’s carefully re-express the semantics here, taking OWL DL and OWL 2 RL into account, and being crystal clear about what is and is not entailed.

📌 Recap of the Setup#

:lovs rdfs:range :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided .

:Carrot_Lettuce_undecided owl:unionOf ( :Carrot :Lettuce ) .

:Snowball :lovs :treat_456 .

🧠 OWL Semantics (Corrected and Precise)#

✅ Yes — it is correct to say:#

A reasoner will infer :treat_456 rdf:type :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided.

Because:

  • rdfs:range says: IF :Snowball :lovs :treat_456 holds, THEN :treat_456 must be an instance of :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided.

  • In RDF/OWL semantics, this is formally:

    ⟦⟨:Snowball, :treat_456⟩ ∈ IEXT(:lovs)⟧ → :treat_456 ∈ ICEXT(:Carrot_Lettuce_undecided)

  • So this is an entailment, and reasoners must derive:

    :treat_456 a :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided .

❌ But What Is Not Inferred:#

It’s still correct that the reasoner does not infer:

:treat_456 a :Carrot .

or

:treat_456 a :Lettuce .

Unless you give it more to go on. The union is not broken down unless further context allows it.

✅ Summary#

Statement

Inferred?

Why

:treat_456 a :Carrot_Lettuce_undecided

✅ Yes

From rdfs:range

:treat_456 a :Carrot or :Lettuce

❌ No

Union not resolved

Prompt

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

🐬 So long, and thanks for all the thoughtful OWL! May your ontologies always be consistent and your SPARQL always SELECT the right things.

Contents