[protege-discussion] Simple and nooby question about inference in Protegé

[Nick Drummond]

Matteo,

Yes, I was just confused when you said about the SWRL tab as this  
doesn't exist for Protege4.x.
No problem, if you are just trying some examples to test the tools - I  
didn't mean to patronize :)

I'd better leave it up to the experts to check the SWRL.

Nick

On 25 Mar 2008, at 15:03, Matteo Montalto wrote:

> Nick Drummond ha detto: in data 25/03/2008 15.26:
>> Matteo,
>>
>> Its not clear which version of Protege you are using for running your
>> rules.
>
> Hello Nick and thanks for your help,
> maybe you didn't see that, I wrote anyway I'm using protege 4.0, build
> 58... Can you please tell me what's the right mailing list to ask for
> help with that version?
>> You should post any Protege3.x OWL/SWRL questions in the protege-owl
>> list [1]
>> Or Protege4.x questions in the protege4.0feedback list [2].
>
> Uhm... but the list for feedback is intended also to get help in such
> questions? :)
>
>> I'm no SWRL expert, but it seems you could get your expected  
>> behaviour
>> by just using equivalent classes in OWL.
>> Parent  = Person and (hasChild some Thing)
>
> of course Nick, I just forgot to explain that my attempt was just an
> example to use some owl:restriction construct into swrl rules. I'm
> working on a project for my thesis, using the jena framework, and my  
> use
> of Protege is limited to some ontology I build ad hoc to test some  
> cases.
> This was the case in which an swrl rule contains an owl:restriction;  
> but
> neither Protege nor my Jena project tell me that trivial assertion,
> which is that Stephanie is a Parent.
> So I guess there's something wrong but cannot find what's the point :)
> Thanks again :)
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03