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?

Mike Waters quaestor at ntlworld.com
Thu Apr 26 11:07:44 PDT 2007


from the following post to the Pellet users mailing list, it seems that Pellet should satisfy the requirements for a reasoner to handle the owl:Restriction problem. However, it looks as if the efficiency improvement suggestion is also appropriate.

Regards,

Mike

http://lists.owldl.com/pipermail/pellet-users/2007-February/001207.html

------- Original Message -------
From: "Martin O'Connor" <martin.oconnor at stanford.edu>
To: jane at janeeisenstein.com, User support for the Protege-OWL editor <protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>
Sent: 26/04/07, 18:27:46
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] SWRL evaluation without DIG 1.0?

This fragment is not OWL Full - it is OWL DL. The problem is with DIG. 
DIG 1.0 (or DIG 1.1) does not support the hasValue restriction. We also 
discovered that not only does DIG not handle this restriction but that 
it also incorrectly indicates that an ontology is inconsistent when it 
contains it. We have discovered several cases where DIG does not work 
correctly with OWL DL ontologies.

The only way to keep DIG happy would be to remove these restrictions, 
which is obviously not ideal.

SWRL should not have any problems with these restrictions.

Martin

> 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 <mailto:janee at softweave.com>>
>>> To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor 
>>> <protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 




More information about the protege-owl mailing list