thhanke.github.io

explainEntailment

Explain WHY a specific entailed axiom holds — Horridge-style justifications for an ARBITRARY entailed axiom (not just inconsistency). Ask 'why is A rdfs:subClassOf B?' or 'why is x rdf:type C?' and get the minimal set(s) of asserted axioms whose conjunction logically entails it. Returns { isEntailed, justifications, summary }: isEntailed=true means the OWL 2 DL reasoner derives the axiom; justifications is a list of minimal axiom sets (each { subject, predicate, object }[]). Empty justifications with isEntailed=true ⇒ the axiom is directly asserted (nothing to derive) or its shape is unsupported. isEntailed=false ⇒ not entailed. summary is a plain-language 'Inferred because: …' explanation. Supported shapes: rdfs:subClassOf and rdf:type with an IRI object (e.g. transitive subclass, domain/range-driven type inference). Read-only: never mutates asserted data.

Page: /ontosphere/

Input schema

{
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "subjectIri",
    "predicateIri",
    "objectIri"
  ],
  "properties": {
    "subjectIri": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "IRI of the axiom subject (the subclass, or the individual)."
    },
    "predicateIri": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "IRI of the predicate — rdfs:subClassOf or rdf:type."
    },
    "objectIri": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "IRI of the axiom object (the superclass, or the class)."
    },
    "maxJustifications": {
      "type": "number",
      "default": 1,
      "description": "Maximum number of independent justifications to return."
    }
  }
}