Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-owl] SWRL evaluation without DIG 1.0?

Jane Eisenstein janee at softweave.com
Thu Apr 26 09:31:17 PDT 2007


Martin, thanks for the clarification. The restrictions on the Jess  
SWRLRuleEngineBridge sounded so similar to those of DIG 1.0, that I  
leapt to the wrong conclusion.

If having necessary and sufficient restrictions that depend on  
particular datatype values moves an ontology into OWL Full, are there  
more appropriate rule languages? Or are there alternate ways to model  
the concept that keep the ontology within OWL-DL?

Here's an example of one of the defined classes that is not supported  
by DIG 1.0:

   <owl:Class rdf:about="#EndocrinologyProviderSpecialtyCode">
     <owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#OncologyProviderSpecialtyCode"/>
     <owl:disjointWith>
       <owl:Class rdf:about="#CardiologyProviderSpecialtyCode"/>
     </owl:disjointWith>
     <owl:equivalentClass>
       <owl:Class>
         <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
           <owl:Class rdf:about="#ProviderSpecialtyCode"/>
           <owl:Restriction>
             <owl:hasValue rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/ 
XMLSchema#string"
             >ENDO</owl:hasValue>
             <owl:onProperty>
               <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="#hasCode"/>
             </owl:onProperty>
           </owl:Restriction>
         </owl:intersectionOf>
       </owl:Class>
     </owl:equivalentClass>
   </owl:Class>



On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Martin O'Connor wrote:

>
> The SWRLTab has no DIG 1.0 dependency - it uses Jess to perform
> inference via direct calls to the Jess API. (The DIG 2.0 requirement I
> mentioned yesterday would be for a KAON2 back end only.)
>
> As with most OWL tools that use reasoners, Protege-OWL does require  
> DIG
> 1.0 to interact with reasoners.
>
> However, if you are using constructs that are not supported by DIG  
> 1.0 I
> would guess that you are not in OWL DL - in which case the SWRL  
> language
> itself may not be useful for you. SWRL is based on OWL DL and can not
> deal directly with OWL Full concepts, such as, for example, classes as
> values. (Though I have implemented some libraries that can be used to
> get around these restrictions, e.g., [1]).
>
> Martin
>
> [1] http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SWRLTBoxBuiltIns
>
> Mike Waters wrote:
>
>> Jane,
>>
>> what are these additional restrictions to your datatype values?  
>> There are a number of reasoner projects hosted on SemWebCentral,  
>> so you could start there, but knowing the particular functionality  
>> required would permit a more focussed assistance.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> From: Jane Eisenstein <janee at softweave.com>
>> To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor <protege- 
>> owl at lists.stanford.edu>
>> Sent: 26/04/07, 12:53:13
>> Subject: [protege-owl] SWRL evaluation without DIG 1.0?
>>
>> I am working on an OWL ontology containing datatype value
>> restrictions not supported by DIG 1.0. Are there any SWRL engine
>> implementations that do not depend on DIG 1.0? If not, are there any
>> other rule systems that work with such OWL ontologies and do not
>> depend on DIG 1.0?
>>
>> If this is the wrong group for this question, please point me in the
>> right direction to get this answered.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jane Eisenstein
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/ 
>> faq.html#01a.03
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/ 
>> faq.html#01a.03
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/ 
> faq.html#01a.03
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20070426/65285b5b/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list