Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-discussion] Simple and nooby question about inference in Protegé
nick.drummond at cs.manchester.ac.uk
Tue Mar 25 10:12:19 PDT 2008
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.
On 25 Mar 2008, at 15:03, Matteo Montalto wrote:
> Nick Drummond ha detto: in data 25/03/2008 15.26:
>> Its not clear which version of Protege you are using for running your
> 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 
>> Or Protege4.x questions in the protege4.0feedback list .
> 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
>> 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
> of Protege is limited to some ontology I build ad hoc to test some
> This was the case in which an swrl rule contains an owl:restriction;
> 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
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-discussion