Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] SWRL to "move" individuals?
kaljurand at gmail.com
Tue Aug 28 12:43:52 PDT 2007
On 8/28/07, Martin O'Connor <martin.oconnor at stanford.edu> wrote:
> Only a very resticted subset of SWRL rules can be saved as equivalent
> OWL constructs.
Yes. There shouldn't be any loops in the variable sharing between
atoms, and the head and the body must share exactly one variable, etc.
> Conversely, SWRL can not directly represent most OWL
> contructs - it requires the use of OWL anonymous classes to do so.
> Non trivial use of OWL requires an intimate knowledge of OWL
> constructs. SWRL provides no magic bullet here.
What I meant was that the SWRLTab could map the following
to OWL (and display a small icon next to the rule that informs
that the rule is actually expressible in OWL):
man(?x) -> human(?x)
human(?x) AND (not woman)(?x) -> man(?x)
car(?x) AND own(John, ?x) -> ford(?x)
Maybe this would be the preferred syntax for some users to enter
OWL axioms? Or maybe this syntax is not preferred but the user simply
fails to figure out what the corresponding OWL syntax should be,
but succeeds in formulating it in SWRL.
More information about the protege-owl