Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Remove JessTab instances from projects
tudorache at stanford.edu
Thu Sep 7 18:01:33 PDT 2006
The JessTab does create some classes (such as ":JESS-RULE"), when you
start it with a frames ontology and stores instances of rules in the
ontology if you enable the "save rules in knowledge base" option. But as
far as I know, it does no create these internal classes and instances,
if you start it with an OWL ontology. How did you get them in the OWL
ontology? Maybe it helps if you describe the steps you did when
activating the Jess tab.
An alternative for describing and executing rules in OWL ontologies is
the SWRLTab (http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SWRLTab), which is
under very active development. However, you will need to use the latest
Protege 3.2 beta, because it does not work with Protege 3.1.
Antonino Lo Bue (gmail) wrote:
>Hi, I'm using Protege 3.1.1 with OWL plugin and JessTab; When I use JessTab
>to modify the OWL ontology using rules, the plugin write into the OWL file
>instances of Jess stuff, when finished I can't save the file because if I do
>this the file can't be reopened (It generates errors).
>How can I delete all Jess instances, or make Jess unable to write in the OWL
>file and into the .pins .pont files?
>I know that visualizing hidden frames I can manually delete all the
>JESS...XXX instances but in my project all the Jess classes can't be
>There is a non-manual method? It is a bug?
>Antonino Lo Bue
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Julia Dmitrieva" <jdmitrie at liacs.nl>
>To: "Protege-OWL mailing list" <protege-owl at lists.Stanford.EDU>
>Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:00 AM
>Subject: [protege-owl] Knowledge from different ontologies
>>I am developing an application that get a
>>knowledge from different ontologies in aria
>>At this moment I use SPARQL queries in order
>>to find the concepts (in different ontologies)
>>that contains the query string in ID, label or comment
>>of the classes.
>>Now I try to figure out how to connect the concepts
>>from different ontologies that I have found.
>>The following step will be of course the getting
>>extra knowledge from subclass superclass relationships,
>>from Object properties and datatype properties.
>>What is the better manner to do it?
>>Have I make one common ontology where I can define
>>the new concepts as union of the concepts that are
>>close (I mean linguistic close, because they can have
>>very different structure and can be defined at different
>>level of granularity).
>>Can I after that use the reasoner?
>>Will the reasoner figure out that each
>>class from the UNION is the subclass of all
>>the supers from different ontologies. And that the
>>subclasses of the different ontologies are also
>>the subclasses of my union?
>>May be I can use SWRL language to define rules in order
>>to reason in different ontologies without making the
>>common ontology. For example I can define this kind of
>>rules (suppose, that I have found two close concepts A and B
>>A from one ontology and B from other ontology, now I can define the
>>following rule :
>>if A is PROPERTY of C then B is PROPERTY of C.
>>Have I use Jess for it, I read somewhere that Jess
>>inferences are not always correct and it is not
>>Please, give me some suggestions, because there are a
>>lot of possibilities and it is better to choose the good
>>Thanks a lot,
>>protege-owl mailing list
>>protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>protege-owl mailing list
>protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
More information about the protege-owl